Outcomes
Curzon established a holistic, integrated project configuration and control framework — giving the programme genuine visibility of project progress and project manager development for the first time. Alignment and engagement on project configuration baselines was achieved across the programme, replacing the ad hoc and unrecognised baselines that had previously made performance measurement impossible. A clear set of shared project metrics — covering cost, schedule, and risk — was created and embedded, and is now actively used for project management and performance conversations across the organisation. The programme moved from one where outputs and checklists dominated, to one focused on outcomes and delivery.
Background
The scale of the challenge was significant. Project and programme performance was poor across the board — virtually all projects were over budget and behind schedule, at a cost of millions to both the programme and the Department for Transport. Project baselines were almost non-existent, rarely agreed, and frequently ignored — making it impossible to hold performance to account or to provide meaningful assurance that the programme would deliver.
Scheme redesign was a constant occurrence but rarely recognised formally, compounding the disconnect between plans and reality. Rather than driving the programme agenda, the agency’s project managers were frequently following contractors’ priorities — a dynamic that undermined both cost control and schedule discipline.
Underlying all of this was a deeply embedded compliance culture. People across the organisation were focused on completing outputs and ticking checklists rather than driving project outcomes and performance. Process adherence had become an end in itself — insulating individuals from accountability while the programme continued to underdeliver.
Curzon Approach
Curzon began with an honest assessment of the organisation’s management capability to implement change and mobilise the workforce — recognising that technical solutions alone would not be sufficient in an environment where behaviours and culture were at the heart of the problem. A detailed analysis of project management capability gaps was conducted, mapped against both the current and future operating model, and used to prioritise where intervention would have the greatest impact.
Project lifecycle process mapping gave a clear picture of where the gaps, levers, and weak points in the system lay — providing the evidence base for a targeted, sequenced improvement plan. Critically, Curzon developed an on-the-job implementation approach that delivered immediate, visible results while simultaneously beginning to address the longer-term capability challenges. This dual-track approach was essential: the programme needed to see early progress to build confidence and momentum, while the deeper behavioural and cultural shift would take longer to embed.
Performance indicators were redesigned to align with outcomes rather than outputs — shifting the conversation from “did we complete the process?” to “did we deliver the result?” This reframing, supported by a new set of shared cost, schedule, and risk metrics, gave the project management community a fundamentally different set of incentives and a common language for performance that had previously been absent.
