Study Quality—The Overlooked Project Risk

When capital projects go off track, the instinct is to focus on what went wrong during execution. Were contractors slow? Did procurement fail? Was the schedule too ambitious? These are the questions that dominate post-mortems. However, the truth is that many of these breakdowns can be traced back to a much earlier phase: study development.

Projects often begin to fail not in the field, but on the page.

The Illusion of Completeness

Most studies appear comprehensive. They include scope definitions, risk registers, financial models, and detailed narratives. They pass internal reviews, meet compliance checklists, and get submitted for board approval. On the surface, they’re complete.

But study quality isn’t measured by formatting or length. It’s measured by its ability to inform execution—real execution, under real constraints, with real teams on real timelines. Many studies fall short because they were created in isolation from those realities. They satisfy procedural needs, but don’t establish a strong foundation for actual delivery.

This illusion of completeness leads organizations to proceed confidently into construction or procurement, unaware that the assumptions embedded in the study are flawed, unverified, or misaligned with the current market. The risk is invisible—until it isn’t.

How Weak Studies Create Strong Problems

The problems caused by poor study quality rarely explode all at once. They show up gradually, often disguised as execution challenges. Contractors start submitting excessive clarification requests. Procurement delays emerge due to underestimated lead times. Scope conflicts surface because interfaces were poorly defined. Costs escalate as reality clashes with overly optimistic productivity or labor assumptions.

Leadership starts getting updates that don’t match expectations. Schedules slip, budgets stretch, and trust begins to erode. However, the root cause isn’t poor performance by the team—it’s a flawed plan they inherited and were tasked with delivering.

This is the danger of mistaking a finished study for a fundable, buildable plan. When a study is too high-level, overly optimistic, or detached from practical execution realities, it pushes problems downstream, where they’re harder—and more expensive—to solve.

The Disconnect Between Studies and Execution

One of the most common issues is the lack of integration between study teams and delivery teams. Studies are often completed by engineering or strategy groups without involving those responsible for actual construction, procurement, logistics, or operations. The result is a theoretical plan that makes sense in a spreadsheet but falls apart in practice.

Construction sequencing may be missing or impractical. Productivity assumptions may not account for site access, labor conditions, or regional constraints. Logistics plans may omit basic access or permitting issues. Even if each section of the study is technically correct, the whole often lacks cohesion or real-world grounding.

This disconnect is particularly hazardous when projects rely on studies to secure funding or trigger board-level approval or rejection decisions. If decision-makers assume the study represents execution readiness—and it doesn’t—then the project enters a high-risk phase without realizing it.

Why Compliance Isn’t Enough

Many studies are designed to meet compliance standards—whether for internal governance, regulatory frameworks, or financing requirements. But compliance and quality are not the same thing.

A study can check all the required boxes and still be insufficient to support successful execution. It may satisfy what’s needed to move forward on paper, but it won’t answer the questions field teams will inevitably ask. It won’t provide clarity around risk ownership, recovery strategies, or change thresholds. It won’t give procurement a realistic view of lead times or supplier capacity.

Compliance moves projects forward. Quality ensures they survive the transition from planning to execution.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

When a poor-quality study guides execution, the costs escalate quickly. Every ambiguous scope item creates room for rework. Every unchallenged assumption becomes a potential surprise. Every missing interface becomes a coordination issue. These problems don’t just cost time and money—they erode confidence.

Teams begin to question the plan. Contractors lose trust in the owner’s leadership. Investors start to scrutinize performance. In some cases, projects are paused or restructured entirely to account for errors that could have been avoided months earlier with a more thorough study.

Beyond financial impact, reputational risk is a genuine concern. A poorly executed study undermines credibility, not just for the project but for the organization behind it.

What Study Quality Looks Like

A high-quality study doesn’t need to be perfect. But it must be defensible. That means assumptions are transparent and verifiable. Risks are not just listed—they’re addressed with fundamental strategies. The scope is defined clearly enough that execution teams can plan against it. Costs and schedules are built from current, validated data, not just historical benchmarks or internal estimates.

Most importantly, the study must reflect the realities of building and operating the asset, not just designing it. That requires meaningful input from those who will execute, not just those who engineer or model.

Study quality is about alignment—between vision and delivery, between design and execution, and between technical assumptions and operational realities. When that alignment is missing, the entire structure begins to wobble.

The Strategic Opportunity to Improve

Improving study quality isn’t about spending more time or money. It’s about asking better questions, engaging broader teams earlier, and challenging optimistic assumptions before they become sunk costs.

This is a leadership decision as much as a technical one. Organizations that prioritize study quality send a signal to investors, partners, and internal teams that they take the delivery of their research seriously. They understand the connection between good planning and successful execution. That they aren’t just trying to green-light a project—they’re trying to deliver it. When leadership reinforces the importance of study quality, it becomes a cultural norm. It becomes a shared expectation. And over time, it becomes a competitive advantage.

TMG Helps You Build Confidence from the Start

At TMG, we work with project owners and sponsors to ensure their studies aren’t only compliant but also actionable. We pressure-test assumptions, review constructability, validate timelines, and align technical models with the conditions projects will face in the real world.

We don’t just help you finish the study. We help you build a foundation that de-risks execution and builds confidence at every level—from the field to the boardroom.

If your project is heading toward a critical study milestone—or if you’re about to rely on an existing study to guide execution—it’s worth asking whether what’s written reflects what’s possible.