资本项目执行差距

New research from 1,050 leaders and frontline workersshows where leadership ambition loses force on the way tothe site, and the execution model that closes the distance Authors Adam J. Shaw Jonas KampikManaging Director – Supply Chain& Engineering, Infrastructure &Capital Projects EMEA Lead Managing Director – Supply Chain& Engineering, Infrastructure &Capital Projects US Lead Alberto Sanz Manager, Accenture Research,Infrastructure & Capital Projects,EMEA LinkedIn LinkedIn LinkedIn Adam works with owners, operatorsand investors to improve theperformance of large-scale capitalprograms across industries,geographies and complex deliverymodels. With more than 20years’ experience, Adam helpsclients increase capital efficiency,strengthen delivery confidence andturn complex programs into morepredictable, executable outcomes. Alberto has more than 25 yearsof experience in marketintelligence and strategic research.He specializes in Infrastructureand Capital Projects, combiningprimary and secondary researchto deliver actionable insights thathelp clients identify opportunities,navigate uncertainty and makeinformed business decisions. Jonas drives complex engineeringand capital programs, combiningconsulting and technical expertise.He has also held leadership roles inengineering firms within Accenture,bringing experience in large-scaleproject delivery and transformationacross industries. Voices from the field Standardized systems help in keeping records consistent,but they don’t always capture informal agreement. Property Coordinator, Manufacturing Plant Project, United States Scheduling tools provide a good structure for planning,but actual sequencing changes frequently due to subcontractordelays and site constraints. Planner, Manufacturing Facility Project, Ireland Digital tools don’t connect well, and there is not enoughAI training for daily pipeline tasks. Site Manager, Energy Infrastructure Project, Canada These are not isolated complaints about tools or processes. They point tosomething deeper: the difficulty of turning enterprise intent into timely decisionsat the workface. The gap between leadership decisions and site execution hasalways existed because different teams bring different responsibilities,perspectives and priorities to the same project. Leaders see portfolios, risk, costand governance. Site teams see sequencing, labor, materials, tools and thedaily constraints that determine whether work can actually move. As projectsbecome larger, more complex and more data-intensive, however, that challengeis becoming increasingly difficult to manage using traditional coordinationmodels. Organizations often find that signals from the field are delayed, filteredor lost before reaching leadership, while also lacking a reliable and consistentmechanism to turn changing field reality into decisions fast enough to matter. Digital technology, including AI, can help close that distance, but only when it isbuilt into the workflows, data and decision rights that govern how work moves onsite. Without that bridge, digital investment becomes one more layer of reportingoptics, providing a clearer view of slippage, but doing very little to prevent it. To better understand where this leadership-to-site disconnect occurs andhow organizations can address it, we analyzed insights from two surveys,one reflecting senior leadership perspectives and one capturing field experience.Together, they show where execution breaks down and what it takes for projectleaders who sit between senior leadership and field teams, such as constructionmanagers, delivery leads and project control leads, to help reduce friction,improve coordination and keep daily work aligned with project goals. About the research This report is based on findings from two proprietary Accenture Researchsurveys.Voices from the Fieldcaptures the perspective of 350 frontlineand site-based workers across data centers, energy, manufacturing,mining and public infrastructure.Blueprint for Successcaptures theperspective of 700 senior leaders across the industries that own,engineer and deliver capital projects. For more details on the surveymethodology, see “Research methodology” at the end of the report. Why strategy losesforce before it reachesthe site Page 06 Where executionbreaks down Page 09 Building the executionmodel that makesambition work on site Replace reporting optics withreal field intelligencePage 14 Align leaders and site teamsaround one definition of valuePage 15 Design technology for execution realityrather than leadership visibilityPage 17 What capital project leaders can stop and startPage 19 4Returns come wheninvestment deliversvalue on site Page 21 Section 1 Why strategyloses forcebefore itreaches the site Our research points to a persistentbreakdown in how strategytranslates into worksite execution. Senior leaders believe they arehaving a meaningful impact onthe fundamentals of projectperformance: 73% to 77% reporta positiv