Only 11% of leaders in architecture, engineering and building say they can provide their board with an immediate view of every transformation initiative, according to new research from technology and management consultancy Emergn
The sector takes an average of 5.5 days to assemble a complete view of its transformation portfolio, the longest of any industry surveyed. Only 27% of leaders say there is clear accountability for stopping work that is not delivering.
The findings come from a study of 350 senior leaders at UK organisations, which earlier this month estimated that transformation and AI initiatives that fail to deliver cost the UK £67 billion a year.
Across UK organisations, an average of 2.5% of annual revenue is written off on transformation that fails to deliver. Only 30% of leaders say stopping an underperforming programme is a normal part of how they operate, while 32% say they can provide their board with a real-time view of every initiative on demand.
The industry breakdown reveals significant differences between sectors.
In architecture, engineering and building, only 11% of leaders can provide their board with an immediate view of every initiative, compared with 32% nationally. It takes the sector an average of 5.5 days to assemble that picture, the slowest result in the study.
Only 27% say there is clear accountability for stopping work that is not delivering. Just 38% agree that transformation projects are necessary to stay competitive, the lowest proportion of any industry. Leaders in the sector also spend an average of £309 of their own money on AI skills, compared with £564 nationally.
Manufacturing and utilities provide a contrast. More than half of leaders (55%) say they can produce a complete, up-to-date view of every initiative immediately, compared with 32% nationally, while 52% say stopping underperforming work is routine, compared with 30% nationally.
The sector also has the highest proportion of leaders funding new work against a written problem statement and evidence review, at 68%.
However, greater discipline has not eliminated waste. Manufacturers and utilities still lose 2.7% of revenue on transformation that fails to deliver, above the national average, while only 25% have had substantial AI training in the past year, the weakest result of any industry.
The research also highlights significant differences in how sectors handle failing transformation projects. In financial services, 54% of leaders say bad news about transformation projects is routinely softened before it reaches senior leadership, compared with 7% in manufacturing and utilities. More than half of financial services leaders also say AI projects are kept alive when it is clear they are not delivering.
IT and telecoms leaders report the highest level of financial waste, estimating that 3.2% of annual revenue goes on transformation that fails to deliver. Meanwhile, 70% say transformation fatigue is a growing concern given the rise of AI projects.
Healthcare has the lowest proportion of leaders saying that stopping underperforming AI work is routine, at 22%, while education records an even lower figure for transformation work overall, at 14%.
Alex Adamopoulos, chairman and CEO of Emergn, said, “In engineering, the ambition is not in doubt. These are industries built on precision and long-term planning, yet when it comes to their own transformation work most leaders cannot see what is actually happening across their portfolio. If only one in ten can give their board a live view of every initiative, and it takes the best part of a week to pull that picture together, decisions are being made blind. You cannot stop work that is failing if you cannot see it failing, and that is where the money is quietly going.
“The firms that pull ahead will not be the ones spending more. They will be the ones that manage their own projects with the same discipline they bring to the work they deliver for clients.”
