Brad Jones

The third episode and the foundational entry of the "NZ ~10 years behind UK in controls maturity" thesis that recurs across the entire podcast. Brad Jones, civil engineer, ten-plus years in NZ after UK consulting at Mace/Bechtel-style organisations, time on City Rail Link with Auckland Transport, five years at Auckland Airport, now leading Vitruvius (civil + horizontal-infrastructure consultancy), arrived in NZ in 2012 having been told the controls and planning function was a decade behind. He scoffed at the time. Ten years later he buys it. The conversation lays out the systems-vs-individuals dichotomy: NZ chases the rare exceptional PM ("there are maybe 60-70 controls specialists in the entire country") instead of building scalable systems; UK and European mega-projects force systematisation because they have to. Brad's "best PMs walked around with three things, plan, cost plan, schedule" framing is the early signature of the project-controls discipline the podcast advocates for. Andy debuts the lorem ipsum reporting test here ("if I produce a report for six weeks and get no feedback, I add filler text to see if anyone's reading it"), and Brad reciprocates with the "leaving strategic mistakes" version. The episode also opens the client-maturity thread: NZ clients are thinly resourced, hire PM companies who themselves are time-boxed and may not have authority to demand quality, the engineer-to-contract role under NZS 3910 is "more of a transactional role" than the active PM oversight UK clients run. 4D planning, Brad's first encounter was Heathrow 2006, is reframed as a communication tool that pulls foremen into project conversations, not just a software output. The conversation closes on the work-breakdown-structure-alignment challenge that Andy will name explicitly across the next 80+ episodes: cost, time, and design data don't share a common WBS, so earned value translation is "complex, but achievable if done early."

Key Topics Discussed

• Controls and Planning, the "10 years behind" thesis. Brad arrived NZ 2012, was told controls + project management were 10 years behind UK/US. Scoffed at the time. After a decade in country: "I tend to buy it now." Specifically: less reliance on systems, more on individuals; less integration with project leadership; less scrutiny of programme + cost data at senior client level.
• Systems vs Individuals, the dichotomy. UK/European mega-projects (Crossrail, Heathrow, Mace, Bechtel-administered) force systematisation because complex projects can't be carried in one person's head. NZ over-relies on the rare phenomenal PM "with everything in their brain." Doesn't scale beyond a $50m project. "You don't go after an individual; you go after their systems. Systems won't collapse when an individual leaves." Bechtel-style training-everyone-in-procedures is the canonical alternative.
• The "three things" PM signature. UK pattern: best PMs walk around site with (a) a plan of the job (design / map), (b) a cost plan, (c) a schedule. Senior PMs whip them out in meetings. NZ pattern: a handful do this; correlation = better delivery.
• Client Maturity, the structural blocker. NZ clients hire PM companies and largely leave them to it. PM companies time-boxed, may not have full authority. The NZS 3910 engineer-to-contract role is "more of a transactional role" rather than active PM oversight. UK clients (e.g. Heathrow) "wouldn't get involved in the day-to-day execution but performance on time and money was not just challenged but scrutinised."
• Reporting-for-reporting's-sake culture. Tools (Power BI, P6, cost plans) are now widely used in NZ; the gap is in using the data vs producing it. "Reporting for reporting's sake."
• The lorem ipsum test. Andy's debut signature: insert filler text into a report after 6 weeks of no feedback to see if anyone's reading it. Brad's variant: "leaving strategic mistakes to see if anyone picks them up." Both confirm the reporting-as-ritual problem.
• NZ vs UK Construction. UK specialists (scheduler, cost manager, risk manager) sit as central backbone of project; NZ specialists play a peripheral role. NZ has ~60-70 controls specialists nationwide. Returning Kiwis with overseas project experience (Bechtel/Mace) carry the discipline back; this is where the magic-PM individuals come from.
• 4D Planning, communication tool, not software. Brad's first encounter was Heathrow 2006. 4D's signature value: getting foremen into the room with a graphic schedule everyone understands. Not affordable for every project, but for confined / complex sites it's transformative. Underutilised in NZ; growing with BIM mainstreaming.
• Earned value + WBS alignment challenge. The cross-data-structure problem: scheduling WBS ≠ costing WBS ≠ design WBS. Earned value done well requires alignment from day 1. "When it works, it supports everything else, especially 4D." Same critique Andy makes verbatim on EP01 ("interrelatability of data"), Brad provides the practitioner's framing.
• NZ 3910 mandates a programme, and PMs put it in the bottom drawer. Brad: "the PM thinks they know better." A program is "a model for the activity. Reviewing it constantly is where the value lies, not just in producing the document." Direct precursor to Raine Selles (Ep 10) "contracts in the bottom drawer" critique two months later.
• Preventive vs firefighting culture. Andy: "a planned approach takes out stress and obvious risks." Brad: "some people are addicted to that high-stakes firefighting environment." The discipline of looking ahead via critical-path + risk register prevents fire-drills.
• Specialists deliver value when allowed to. Both agree: clients must push for quality planning AND pay for it. UK pattern is gold standard; NZ relies on a handful of returners to drag the system forward.

Notable Quotes

Brad [00:53]: "People had said that PM-ing and controls were something like 10 years behind the UK or the US… I kind of scoffed at that. After being here 10 years… we're a bit behind."

Brad: "I was told NZ was 10 years behind the UK in project management. I scoffed at it then. After 10 years here, I tend to buy it now."

Brad: "Big projects in Europe tend to drive need for those sorts of systems. You have to systemise if you're going to do anything complex. Less reliance on the individual, more reliance on a team and a system of things."

Brad: "The best PMs I saw walking around site had three things: a plan of the job, their cost plan, and a schedule."

Brad: "You argue it doesn't scale beyond a $50 million project. Get to a scale where you can't really rely on it all hanging on somebody's shoulders."

Brad: "You don't go after an individual; you go after their systems. Systems won't collapse when an individual leaves."

Brad: "Reporting for reporting's sake, using project management tools that have been around for 50-odd years."

Andy: "If I produce a report for six weeks and get no feedback, I add a bit of lorem ipsum, filler text, in the middle to see if anyone's actually reading it."

Brad: "I've seen programs go straight to the bottom of a drawer on day one because the PM thinks they know better."

Brad: "A program is a model for the activity. Reviewing it constantly is where the value lies, not just in producing the document."

Guest Background

Brad Jones is a civil engineer by background, originally from the UK. UK career in consulting (project + programme controls in client businesses, alliances, Mace/Bechtel-administered mega-projects). Moved to NZ in 2012; client-side at Auckland Transport on City Rail Link, then five years at Auckland Airport before returning to consulting. At time of recording, business leader at Vitruvius, a civil engineering + horizontal-infrastructure consultancy in Auckland. Specialist scope spans scheduling, cost management, risk management, and programme management. Brad's UK experience on Mace/Bechtel-style organisations gives him direct comparative perspective on the maturity gap.