Call Us Today: +1 866 205 2414
Call Us Today: +1 866 205 2414
As capital projects transition from planning to execution, unexpected challenges often begin to emerge. Despite strong planning efforts, the realities of fieldwork, contractor integration, procurement variability, and shifting priorities can overwhelm even well-resourced teams. At that point, the question becomes not if support is needed, but how best to deliver it.
Execution support generally takes two forms: embedded or external. Both aim to reinforce control and sustain performance under pressure, but they do so in very different ways. Choosing the right model depends on factors such as timing, project complexity, internal capacity, and the nature of the challenges at hand.
Embedded execution support is precisely that—support that becomes part of the project itself. Professionals working under this model are physically and functionally integrated with the project team. They don’t sit outside the process offering suggestions—they’re inside the process, enforcing structure, solving problems, and enhancing decision-making in real time.
An embedded advisor may work from the site office, attend daily standups, walk the job site with contractors, and participate directly in cost tracking and milestone reviews. They know the constraints of the field and the pressure points facing the project team because they experience them firsthand. This proximity allows for a depth of understanding—and a speed of intervention—that can’t be matched by arms-length involvement.
This model is beneficial for high-risk or fast-moving projects where drift has already occurred. When schedules are slipping, costs are rising, and coordination is breaking down, embedded support helps contain the damage and reestablish alignment before the problems become unmanageable.
External execution support typically comes in the form of consulting engagements or third-party reviews. These professionals are brought in at defined intervals or for specific mandates, such as health checks, performance audits, governance reviews, or post-mortems.
What external support lacks in immediacy, it makes up for in objectivity. These teams bring a fresh perspective to a project. They aren’t embedded in team culture, internal politics, or the daily pace of delivery, which makes it easier for them to speak plainly about what works—and what doesn’t.
This model is often preferred for early-stage reviews, periodic assurance for executive stakeholders, or situations where leadership needs validation of internal reporting. External support is also common in portfolios where multiple projects are being reviewed for risk exposure or consistency across delivery frameworks.
However, external support does have limits. It’s not designed to respond dynamically to shifting conditions. By the time reports are written and recommendations are reviewed, site conditions may have evolved. While the insight may still be valuable, the window for immediate course correction may have passed.
At its core, the distinction between these models revolves around proximity to action. Embedded support is fully integrated into the project. It strengthens discipline by reinforcing it from within. External support operates from outside, offering distance and independence, but limited influence on day-to-day execution.
That doesn’t mean one is superior to the other. They serve different purposes. Embedded support is best suited to active interventions—when work is already underway, and rapid adjustments are required to stay on track. External support excels when leadership requires transparency, independent assurance, or an external sounding board before making significant decisions.
It’s also worth noting that the two models can work in tandem. Many successful projects begin with periodic external reviews and transition into embedded support as complexity increases or internal capacity becomes strained. Others maintain a baseline of embedded support while scheduling periodic independent assurance to validate internal data and governance practices.
The real risk isn’t in choosing the wrong model—it’s in waiting too long to choose either. Many project owners delay seeking execution support until significant damage has already occurred. They hope internal teams can “push through,” or fear that outside involvement signals failure. In reality, the most effective interventions happen early, when problems are still reversible and teams are open to collaboration.
Waiting until drift becomes delay, or until field frustration becomes disengagement, turns a manageable challenge into a reputational and financial liability.
If your project is progressing smoothly, internal governance is in place, and leadership has full visibility into real-time performance, then an external review at key milestones may be sufficient. However, if you’re experiencing persistent slippage, unclear accountability, growing contractor tension, or declining confidence in reporting, embedded support is likely the more effective approach.
More than anything, the correct execution support model reflects the current state of the project. It’s not about preference or habit. It’s about choosing the level of involvement that matches the urgency and complexity of the situation, before those factors begin to dictate the outcome.
At TMG, we don’t believe in cookie-cutter execution support. We assess where your project stands, where your gaps are, and what level of reinforcement is needed to preserve control and performance.
Whether you need real-time support embedded with your team or structured external reviews to support strategic oversight, we tailor our approach to meet your conditions on your terms, without disruption.
Contact a TMG expert today to explore options that align with your team, your project stage, and your performance goals.
Group Manager – Eastern Canada
Varun Persaud is Group Manager – Eastern Canada at TMG, where he leads integrated delivery teams executing projects across the mining, energy, and infrastructure industries. With extensive experience in mechanical engineering, construction oversight, and project planning, Varun is known for driving schedule adherence and performance reliability. He has delivered field leadership for critical assets, including tailings infrastructure at Kirkland Lake Gold’s Macassa site. He is valued for his hands-on leadership, team alignment, and consistent on-budget performance.
Varun provides regional leadership for TMG’s Owner’s Project Management (OPM) engagements, managing interface with contractors, engineering partners, and permitting bodies. He is involved in the technical execution of site development, mechanical systems commissioning, and contractor quality assurance, often acting as the field-level liaison for technical resolution. His ability to interpret and execute against design documents and field constraints ensures real-world constructability and adherence to performance targets.
TMG specializes in executive and operational consulting for the Mining, Energy, and Infrastructure sectors. We provide tailored oversight and strategic guidance across all project stages, ensuring optimal outcomes from conception to execution.
TMG committed to diversity and inclusion, based on the undisputed fact, that a fully inclusive environment, fosters a unique perspectives that can solve challenging problems and creates value, within the company, for our clients, the communities of which we work, and the world at large.
TMG’s corporate vision and values, are to honour the rights and cultures of all people and respectfully approach all business, with fair dealings and establishing and maintain a mutually respectful relationship.
TMG acknowledges that our offices are located on traditional lands of divers First Nations and Indigenous peoples. Guided by the Constitution of both Canada & the USA, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the recommendations of all Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a framework, we are committed to taking ongoing positive and concrete steps towards reconciliation.