This article was first published in the February 2026 issue of Construction Week Middle East.

As the Middle East moves deeper into the implementation phase of its ambitious national strategies, notably Saudi Vision 2030, the construction landscape is being fundamentally reshaped. From Saudi Arabia’s giga-projects to the UAE’s infrastructure expansion, the industry is currently defined by one unyielding reality: the deadline.

Whether anchored to a World Expo, a FIFA World Cup, or a National Day launch, these projects often come with immovable completion dates. In this high-pressure environment, the luxury of time is rare. Acceleration is no longer a contingency plan; it is the default setting.

The High Stakes of Acceleration

Any organisation must remain wary of the inherent risks in starting major construction works. While successful delivery relies on effective pre-planning and oversight, the current demand for speed presents a double-edged sword. To set a project up for success, we must look past the schedule and engineer resilience into the project’s very setup.

Drawing on TBH’s 60 years of experience delivering on major projects globally, we have identified that true success requires learning from the hard-won lessons of previous mega-events.

The Acceleration Trap: Fast-Tracking vs. Crashing

The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines fast-tracking as overlapping phases normally done in sequence (like design and construction), while crashing involves adding resources to decrease duration. While essential in the region, these techniques are frequently misapplied.

The most common pitfall is fast-tracking construction before the design is progressed enough to start work on site. In the rush to break ground, projects often proceed with fluid requirements, resulting in “negative iteration” or rework. A wall built today based on a 60% design often requires demolition tomorrow when the MEP interface is finally defined.

TBH has recently observed several claims on projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) where the primary delay driver was premature fast-tracking. Starting construction without sufficient design maturity forces contractors and the client to either wait for information or face the costly cycle of abortive works. True speed requires the discipline to “go slow to go fast,” ensuring the design is mature enough to support the construction sequence.

The Four Pillars of Project Risk

To establish robust risk management to increase the probability of successful delivery, stakeholders must address four specific hurdles where projects often falter:

1. Scope and Design Fluidity: The inability to finalise project requirements early is the single biggest driver of delay. If high quality finishes are not specified and procured with their long lead times in mind, the project hits a wall just as it should be racing toward handover.
2. Interface Management: No project is an island. In the current landscape, projects often border multiple others under simultaneous construction. Failing to define physical and technical interfaces creates “grey zones” where no contractor takes ownership, causing disruption.
3. Resource Capability: The “War for Talent” is real. Finding competent subcontractors who can deliver on time while complying with increasingly stringent welfare standards is a major challenge. A main contractor is only as fast as their slowest subcontractor.
4. Financial Flow: Funding availability often fluctuates. When payments to the main contractor are delayed, the pain flows down to the supply chain instantly, eroding the morale required to push for the finish line.

A Cultural Shift: Proactive Dispute Resolution

Perhaps the most critical shift required is in how the industry handles disputes. Historically, contractors and clients let claims pile up, resulting in an end of project settlement challenge for the parties. This is a failure of governance. To set a project up for success, we must embrace proactive dispute resolution:

• Real-Time Assessment: Don’t wait. If a delay occurs, acknowledge it, assess the cause immediately, and agree on the quantum.
• Amicable Settlement: Most disputed items can be resolved amicably if addressed early to maintain cash flow and momentum.
• Realistic Expectations: Reasonable claims and fair assessments preserve site relationships and prevent small issues from snowballing.
• A “Claims Aware” Culture: Empower teams to understand the contract so they spend less time arguing about it and more time executing it.

Case Study: Iconic Entertainment Venue, KSA

The value of this proactive approach was demonstrated at a recently opened iconic entertainment venue in KSA.

TBH served as the claims advisor for the client. By applying the strategies outlined above, specifically early engagement and realistic assessment, TBH helped both the client and the contractor reach a resolution regarding ongoing claims during the project delivery. As a result, the project was successfully delivered and opened to the public, in line with TBH’s recommendations and without escalating into a claims battlefield.

Conclusion

The projects we are building today will define the region for decades. However, “success” is no longer just about crossing the finish line; it is about how we get there. By respecting the discipline of design, securing the supply chain, and choosing dialogue over dispute, we can deliver these engineering marvels without leaving a legacy of conflict. The deadline may be carved in stone, but our approach to meeting it must be agile, disciplined, and collaborative.