Why Good Design Matters More Than Project Management

Why Engineering Design Matters More Than Project Management

Lessons from Tailings Dam Failures in the Global Mining Industry

In engineering-led industries such as mining, construction, and heavy manufacturing, project management is often seen as the key to success โ€” on time, on budget, and on scope.

However, history shows that when failures occur, they are rarely caused by poor project management alone.

Some of the most serious industrial failures in the world โ€” including tailings dam collapses โ€” demonstrate a critical truth:

Project management cannot compensate for poor or marginal engineering design.

At Hamilton By Design, we believe design sets the safety ceiling. Project management operates within it.


Project Management Executes โ€” Design Determines Risk

Project management is essential. It coordinates people, schedules, procurement, and delivery. But it does not:

  • Increase a structureโ€™s factor of safety
  • Prevent liquefaction
  • Change material behaviour
  • Improve drainage capacity
  • Create resilience to abnormal conditions

Those outcomes are locked in at the design stage.

If a system requires perfect execution to remain safe, then the design is already fragile.

Good engineering design assumes:

  • Humans make mistakes
  • Weather exceeds forecasts
  • Equipment fails
  • Maintenance is imperfect

And it builds in margin, redundancy, and tolerance accordingly.


Tailings Dam Failures: A Clear Engineering Example

Tailings dam failures provide one of the clearest illustrations of the difference between design responsibility and project management responsibility.

Post-failure investigations across multiple countries consistently show that:

  • Many failed dams were operating as intended
  • Rainfall events were often within design assumptions
  • Operators followed approved procedures
  • Warning signs existed but reflected systemic weakness, not isolated mistakes

The common thread was not poor scheduling or cost control โ€” it was design philosophy.

Typical design-level issues identified:

  • Excess water retained in tailings
  • Low-density slurry disposal
  • Marginal stability under normal variability
  • Reliance on operational controls to maintain safety
  • Legacy designs never upgraded to match increased production

When a dam fails after a rainfall event, the rain is usually the trigger โ€” not the root cause.


Why Design Must Be Forgiving of Operations

Engineering design should be robust, not optimistic.

A safe design is one where:

  • Small operational deviations do not create instability
  • Water balance can tolerate extreme events
  • Safety does not depend on constant intervention
  • Failure modes are slow, visible, and recoverable

When operators or project managers are forced to โ€œmanage aroundโ€ design weaknesses, risk accumulates silently.

If safety relies on perfect behaviour, the system is unsafe by design.


The Australian Perspective: Design First, Then Manage

Australiaโ€™s generally strong tailings safety record reflects a broader engineering mindset:

  • Conservative design assumptions
  • Strong emphasis on water recovery and thickened tailings
  • Avoidance of high-risk construction methods
  • Independent engineering review
  • Design-for-closure thinking

Project management remains critical โ€” but it is not asked to compensate for marginal engineering.

This philosophy extends beyond tailings dams into:

  • Bulk materials handling
  • Structural steelwork
  • Brownfield upgrades
  • Shutdown-critical fabrication
  • Plant modifications

What This Means for Mining and Industrial Projects

The lesson is simple but powerful:

Engineering design controls risk.
Project management controls delivery.

When design is done properly:

  • Project management becomes easier
  • Variability is absorbed safely
  • Failures become unlikely rather than inevitable

When design is compromised:

  • Project management is left managing risk it cannot remove
  • The system becomes fragile
  • Incidents become a matter of when, not if

Our Approach at Hamilton By Design

At Hamilton By Design, we work from the principle that:

  • Design must be defensible
  • Assumptions must be explicit
  • Failure modes must be understood
  • Engineering judgement must lead delivery

Whether weโ€™re supporting:

  • Mining infrastructure
  • Tailings-adjacent plant systems
  • Bulk materials handling
  • Brownfield modifications
  • Shutdown-critical upgrades

We prioritise engineering-led design decisions that reduce reliance on operational heroics.


Final Thought

Project management is essential โ€” but it should never be asked to solve problems that only engineering design can prevent.

The safest projects are not the best managed ones โ€”
they are the best designed ones.

Hamilton By Design logo displayed on a blue tilted rectangle with a grey gradient background

Talk to an Engineer First

If your project involves:

  • High-risk infrastructure
  • Brownfield modifications
  • Water-sensitive systems
  • Shutdown-critical works

Get engineering involved early.
Contact Hamilton By Design to discuss an engineering-led approach that reduces risk before construction begins or Be part of the discussion.

Name
Would you like us to arrange a phone consultation for you?
Address

Project Management, Programme Control & Safety on Thai Infrastructure Projects

Engineers reviewing a project schedule beside live rail construction, illustrating the link between programme control, temporary works, and public safety in infrastructure projects.

Building the Case for Stronger Project-Management Governance on Thai Infrastructure Projects

Recent infrastructure failures in Thailand have highlighted an issue that extends beyond construction capability, technical standards, or nationality. The common thread running through these events is how large projects are governed, scheduled, and controlled.

This discussion is not about blame.
It is about delivery systems, incentives, and authority โ€” and whether current models are sufficiently robust for complex work undertaken beside live roads, rail, and the public.


The delivery context

Many major infrastructure projects in Thailand are delivered through government-to-government frameworks involving international state-linked partners, including Chinese state-owned enterprises such as China Railway Engineering Corporation and related entities.

Within these arrangements:

  • local contractors typically hold construction responsibility
  • international partners provide systems, standards, technical authority, or programme input
  • project milestones are tightly defined and politically significant

This model brings scale, funding certainty, and delivery speed. It also creates predictable pressure points that deserve closer examination.


Infrastructure project managers assessing schedules during crane operations near live rail, representing safety governance and programme control in complex urban construction.

What the recent failures tell us

The incidents that have triggered concern were not failures of rail technology or permanent structural design. They were predominantly:

  • temporary works failures
  • crane and staging incidents
  • work undertaken adjacent to live public corridors

These are execution and sequencing failures, not design failures โ€” and they are heavily influenced by programme structure and schedule control.

This leads to a fundamental governance question:

Who has the authority to change the programme when safe sequencing requires it?


Programme control is not neutral

When schedules are:

  • externally fixed
  • politically sensitive
  • commercially punitive to miss

risk does not disappear. It is transferred downward.

In practice, this often manifests as:

  • parallel work instead of sequential isolation
  • reduced exclusion zones
  • reliance on procedural controls rather than engineered separation
  • temporary works treated as โ€œmeans and methodsโ€ instead of engineered systems

None of this requires bad intent. It is a system response to inflexible programmes.


The role of Chinese state-owned enterprises

Chinese SOEs involved in these projects are not typically the principal construction contractors. However, they often exert significant influence over programme structure, milestones, and delivery expectations.

Across multiple countries, state-linked delivery models tend to exhibit consistent characteristics:

  • strong emphasis on schedule certainty
  • delegation of safety responsibility to downstream contractors
  • limited flexibility once programme commitments are set
  • incidents framed as execution issues rather than programme-design issues

Whether fair or not, this creates a perception that delivery behaviour is structurally stable and slow to change, even after serious failures.

That perception alone justifies a review of governance arrangements.


Why Australian project-management capability is relevant

Australian companies were not in project-management or programme-control roles on the projects that failed. As a result, Australian safety-governance practices were not embedded in the delivery model.

Australian project-management frameworks are shaped by:

  • acceptance that schedules must move to protect safety
  • independent temporary-works engineering and sign-off
  • explicit treatment of live-interface work as a programme risk
  • separation between commercial pressure and safety authority
  • deep experience in brownfield, shutdown, and live-asset environments

This does not make Australian firms better builders.
It makes them effective governance counterbalances in high-risk delivery environments.


The case for change

The argument is not to exclude existing partners.
It is to strengthen governance.

A more resilient delivery model could include:

  • Australian firms in programme-management or independent PM roles
  • independent temporary-works authorities reporting outside the construction chain
  • schedule-risk reviews with genuine authority to resequence work
  • clearer separation between political milestones and construction logic

These measures do not slow projects โ€” they prevent catastrophic delay caused by failure.


The central point

Safety outcomes are not determined by nationality or intent.
They are determined by who controls the programme, how flexible it is, and whether safety has real authority over time and cost.

Strengthening that authority is a rational, evidence-based step forward.


The power of the people

Real improvement in infrastructure delivery does not start with press releases.
It starts when engineers, supervisors, workers, and communities speak openly about how projects are actually delivered.

Those closest to the work experience programme pressure and safety trade-offs long before failures occur. Giving space to those voices is not about blame โ€” it is about learning, transparency, and better governance.

When people are allowed to speak, systems are forced to listen.


Hamilton By Design logo displayed on a blue tilted rectangle with a grey gradient background

Comments are open

This post is intended to encourage informed, professional discussion about project-management models, programme control, and safety governance.

The focus is on systems and incentives โ€” not nationality or individual blame.
Constructive perspectives from those with professional or on-the-ground experience are welcome.


Our clients:


Name
Would you like us to arrange a phone consultation for you?
Address