What HS2 can teach us about successful project management
25 Mar 2025
Blog
This article covers:
- How to establish clear objectives and integration across teams to ensure project success
- The importance of capabilities assessment, standardized approaches and continuous learning
- Why effective project management is crucial for business growth, especially in challenging economic times
In late February 2025, the Committee of Public Accounts published a report on the HS2 program. Their opening line didn't mince words: "The High-Speed Two (HS2) program has become a casebook example of how not to run a major project."
While few of us will ever manage a multibillion-pound rail project, the failures highlighted in this report will seem uncomfortably familiar to many business leaders. Whether you're launching a new product, implementing a business improvement initiative, or overseeing a factory expansion, the same fundamental errors can derail even the most promising projects.
Different pages, different books
One of the most striking aspects of the HS2 debacle was the lack of integration between the Department for Transport and HS2, with both working to utterly different cost projections for Phase 1. The report noted they were "yet to reach agreement on the methodology and assumptions that underpin their cost estimates."
This type of misalignment occurs regularly in business projects. How often have you experienced the marketing team proceeding with one set of expectations while manufacturing works with another? Or the CEO announcing ambitious plans that the delivery team knows are impossible with available resources?
Ensuring a crystal-clear business case is communicated correctly and aligned across all departments is essential for preventing nasty financial surprises. Without this alignment, you're not just on different pages but reading entirely different books.
The curious case of the missing station
The HS2 report revealed that the government had announced that the line would terminate at London Euston despite having no actual plans for the work required to accommodate HS2 trains at the station. It's like announcing a grand house extension without checking whether your foundations can support it.
Similar oversight happens in business projects daily. For example, a new product launch proceeds without confirming manufacturing capacity. Or a digital transformation initiative kicks off before assessing IT infrastructure requirements. Or even launch a business improvement project without considering whether staff have the capacity to implement changes while maintaining daily operations.
When setting out on any project, valid plans must incorporate all required resources: skills, equipment, materials, finances, and – critically – a thorough vulnerability analysis with corresponding mitigation plans. These aren't just boxes to tick; they're essential safeguards that determine whether your project will succeed or become another cautionary tale.
Skills: the elephant in the project room
The report pointedly states that the Committee "has repeatedly raised concerns over the Department and HS2 having the skills and capability they need". This continues to be one of the most overlooked aspects of project planning in businesses worldwide.
I've witnessed countless projects initiated without team members fully understanding the desired outcome or having the knowledge to deliver it. The result? Wasted time aligning people on the same page, varying degrees of capability, and competing opinions on what's required.
Sometimes, the missing skill is as fundamental as an awareness of good project management principles. Assessment of capabilities must be built into project planning from day one, not treated as an afterthought when things begin to go awry.
The groundhog day of project management
"The Department and HS2 Ltd have repeatedly said they are learning lessons but there is little evidence that lessons have been applied effectively and mistakes avoided."
This statement captures one of the most significant missed opportunities in business: failing to learn from previous projects. In a world where time-to-market is increasingly vital, especially for product development, this becomes a competitive disadvantage.
Learning from mistakes using a basic Plan-Do-Check-Act approach can drive remarkable improvements. By standardizing your approach to project management, you can assess actual performance against standard approaches, identify points of failure or waste, and continually refine your processes.
I've seen this work firsthand. In one fast-moving consumer goods company, we standardized activities through a stage-gate process with templates for each phase. This allowed post-project reviews to identify precisely where issues occurred. The upshot was that the time-to-market for new products reduced from 12 months to just five months over a couple of years.
Why this matters now
In the challenging economic landscape of early 2025, businesses cannot afford project failures. Every wasted pound, every delayed launch, and every misaligned initiative directly impact bottom-line performance.
Most businesses are focused on growth. Yet, achieving this growth typically requires new product development. Just look at companies like Apple, Microsoft, or Dyson – their success stems largely from bringing new products to market efficiently and effectively.
There's only so much cost you can remove from existing operations. Actual growth comes from moving with consumers, enhancing your product offerings, and adapting to changing market needs – all of which require excellent project management.
The parallels between HS2's challenges and everyday business projects offer valuable lessons. By ensuring integration across departments, developing comprehensive plans, assessing capabilities honestly, and committing to continuous learning, you can transform your approach to project management from a liability into a decisive competitive advantage.
Isn't it time your business stopped being a casebook example of project management failures and became a masterclass in getting things right?
Author(s)
-
