.png)
Snowy 2.0 and the cost of committing before we understand the work
Updated: 3 days ago
By James Bawtree
Why major infrastructure and digital programs need purpose, people and a credible plan
Snowy 2.0’s latest cost increase should prompt every board and executive sponsoring a major digital or infrastructure program to examine the connection between their ambition, their design and the plan they have approved.
On 22 October, Snowy Hydro announced a revised target cost of $22.2 billion, allowing for a $25 billion cost scenario, with full commissioning now targeted for late 2029. The Australian Financial Review reported that project complexity and previous inaccurate forecasts informed the higher provision. These are recurring risks across large programs, including digital transformation. They should influence how we design, resource and govern the work from the outset.
In our earlier article, What Snowy 2.0 means for High-Speed Rail and Brisbane 2032, we examined the risks of early estimates becoming commitments and the need for independent challenge as the business case changes. The latest reporting brings a more fundamental issue into focus: how confidently can we forecast the work when we have not sufficiently defined what must be delivered and how it will operate?
Snowy 2.0 Cost: How Immature Design Drives Cost and Workforce Pressure
Snowy Hydro chief executive Dennis Barnes put the relationship plainly in the AFR:
“This job is 80 per cent people, in terms of cost. The biggest driver of the cost increase is that we didn’t have the design. [It was] immature, so we didn’t know how many people we needed to run all of these work fronts,” he said.
Snowy Hydro’s own announcement adds that construction design was only 44 per cent complete at the 2023 reset, compared with 96 per cent now. It also identifies construction complexity, productivity shortfalls, underestimated scope and inflation as contributors to the increase.
That matters because a cost forecast depends on assumptions about the work, its sequence, the skills required and the productivity achievable. When the design changes, those assumptions change with it. Additional work fronts can require more supervision, coordination, specialist input and support, while delays extend the period for which people are needed.
Digital programs face a comparable problem. A platform may be selected before business processes are agreed, integrations understood, data assessed or operational responsibilities defined. These gaps can emerge through configuration, testing and transition, creating rework and extending the demand for scarce people. The 80 per cent figure is specific to Snowy; the relationship between design maturity and workforce demand applies much more widely.
Purpose must extend to the people receiving the benefit
In my recent LinkedIn video, I describe three essentials for successful delivery: purpose, people and a plan. Purpose must be expressed in terms of the outcome people need, then carried through into the design and delivery arrangements.
For Snowy 2.0, that means electricity available to consumers when it is needed. Storage and generating capacity achieve their intended value through a functioning energy system, including the transmission capacity to move electricity to where it will be used.
Transmission was recognised in earlier planning. Transgrid records that Snowy 2.0 and its associated transmission project received critical infrastructure status in 2018. HumeLink nevertheless illustrates a crucial program management challenge: an essential dependency can sit outside the organisation delivering the principal asset.
My concern is the completeness of accountability for the outcome. Separate ownership and funding arrangements still require agreed interfaces, coordinated milestones and escalation when a dependency threatens the benefit. A program’s purpose has to remain connected to how its outputs will actually be used.
The digital equivalent is a new service that goes live before the receiving organisation has the data, skills, processes or support capacity to use it effectively. Success must be measured through improved service and sustained performance.
Define the future operation before committing to delivery
A target operating model translates strategy and purpose into a coherent description of how the future operation will work. Drawing on PRINCE2 Programme Management, I would expect it to connect the following aspects:
Aspect | What the design needs to establish |
People and organisation | Roles, accountabilities, staffing, skills, decision rights and the capacity to adopt change. |
Processes | How work flows across organisational boundaries and how performance will be assessed. |
Technology and tools | The systems, platforms, integrations, automation and tools supporting the operation. |
Culture | The values, behaviours and leadership practices needed to make the intended changes work. |
Infrastructure | The physical assets, facilities, equipment and operating environment required. |
Information and data | The information flows, quality, availability and access needed for service delivery and decisions. |
Knowledge and learning | How expertise is retained, people learn and the operation continues to improve. |
These aspects must be designed together and aligned with strategy, measurable benefits and the needs of the people affected. For AI-enabled services, that includes explicit human accountability and oversight.
The operating model must connect to sufficiently mature engineering or solution designs and a resource-tested delivery plan. Each serves a different purpose: the operating model describes the intended operation, technical designs specify the solution, and the plan establishes how the transition will be achieved.
This can develop progressively. Define a coherent overall direction, develop near-term work in sufficient detail and make uncertainty in later stages visible. Commitments should reflect the evidence available at each decision point.
Give the business and its people a voice through the BCM
The Business Change Manager, or BCM, is a leadership role that connects program delivery with the people and operations that must adopt the resulting capability. In large digital programs, this role should carry credible business authority and a close understanding of operational reality.
The BCM leads development of the target operating model with the Program Manager and relevant specialists, brings affected people into design decisions, secures operational participation and tests whether teams are ready, willing and able to work differently. The role also helps embed the changes and establish whether the expected benefits are being realised.
That requires more than communications and training. The BCM needs to challenge a design that creates impractical workloads, a release that operations cannot support or a benefit dependent on changes nobody owns. Working alongside the Program Manager, the BCM connects delivery decisions to adoption and performance. Where several organisations are affected, business change leadership must reach across those boundaries.
Construction workforce planning and business change leadership are distinct responsibilities. Both depend on the program understanding its people requirements, and both need to be reflected in governance and the integrated plan.
Make the plan credible enough to govern
The ANAO’s June 2026 audit found that Snowy Hydro had no agreed baseline schedule and lacked a robust understanding of the forecast cost to complete. It also identified difficulties achieving assumed productivity gains. These findings describe weaknesses in the controls needed to manage complexity.
Every large program should therefore be able to demonstrate:
A clear connection between strategic purpose, delivered capability, operational outcomes and measurable benefits.
An integrated design that identifies dependencies and includes the people who will deliver, operate and use the capability.
A schedule tested against actual resource capacity, technical constraints, approvals and operational readiness.
Cost forecasts that expose their assumptions, uncertainty and sensitivity to productivity and delay.
Independent assurance that tests the evidence and prompts decisions when the business case or delivery assumptions change.
Snowy 2.0 gives leaders a practical reason to revisit these questions now. Complexity makes it more important to understand the whole system, involve the right people and maintain a credible plan. Those disciplines belong at the point of commitment and throughout delivery.
At PMLogic, we help sponsors and executive teams connect strategy, target operating models, business change and delivery through program design, capability uplift and independent assurance. Contact PMLogic to examine whether your program’s purpose, people and plan are aligned with the outcomes you need.
Comments