Kevin Masters: 0:00

Three years ago I joined KPMG. We're in the major projects advisory team. I broker conversations and strategies between government and the private sector to try and get, ultimately, a better deal for infrastructure, a better deal for citizens. Ultimately, I have a strong belief that infrastructure has a big impact on our everyday lives, whether that's the schools that educate our children I've got two kids at home or it's the hospitals that cure our families. Infrastructure and construction is a wonderful industry. You know. It does so much good for the average person. There are so many facets to construction and infrastructure.

Kevin Masters: 0:32

My advice would be to Well, I'm an engineer from background.

Kevin Masters: 0:38

To start with, I come back from a long history of engineers. My brother is an engineer, my grandfather's an engineer, so engineering is in the family, for sure. But I suppose a few years ago I kind of started to find I sort of reached a sort of ceiling point, if you like, in my engineering career where the technical component, if you like, of what I was doing kind of plateaued, I suppose, and I really wanted to kind of get sort of into a different type of room to understand where some of the key decisions were happening much earlier on and use the skills and the knowledge I've got from a sort of practical perspective to kind of influence those decisions right at the very beginning. So yeah, three years ago I joined KPMG. I'm a director now within the major projects advisory team and I guess I mean I tend to sort of describe my role as a bit sort of like marriage counselling, I suppose. I broker conversations and strategies between government and the private sector to try and get ultimately a better deal for infrastructure, a better deal for citizens ultimately.

Darren Evans: 1:34

What is it that you're trying to achieve then? Overall, you say a better deal, but what's your ambition?

Kevin Masters: 1:40

What is the ambition? So I have a strong belief that infrastructure has a big impact on our everyday lives. You know, whether that's the schools that educate our children you know I've got two kids at home or it's the hospitals that cure our families, you know they're really important to our day lives. But I think infrastructure is generally done quite badly, is done badly from the perspective of those who are going to occupy those assets in the future, but it's done badly in terms of the deal for taxpayers, in terms of maximising the investment, whether government or even the private sector is putting into it. So what I want to be able to do is use those skills to be able to influence again, right at the very beginning of those projects or those programmes, to ultimately allow the projects to be more successful so the outcomes, the outputs, are more successful again.

Darren Evans: 2:25

So citizens get a better deal. Can you give me an example of where a project has been done badly? Wow so I.

Kevin Masters: 2:31

I think you can look in the press and there's lots of doom and gloom in terms of projects that haven't been done sort of particularly well. Um, yeah, it's very difficult to sort of point on a specific one, but I think just the general. I mean. Professor flyberg, for example, speaks very well in his book and the evidence that he's accumulated in terms of major projects and I suppose the number of which you know, don't deliver on the outcomes, that they're over spent, they're delayed in terms of the outcome. So there's a huge tapestry, if you like, of projects and I suppose the bigger and the more complex they get, the more likely heard, unfortunately, that the outcomes don't deliver on what they were intending to do. I think people know exactly what are the bad examples in the market right now.

Darren Evans: 3:11

What do you think that can be done to make these large scale projects deliver on their initial ambition or initial promise?

Kevin Masters: 3:19

So I think again, it starts right at the beginning, so understanding what is the core objectives of what we want to be able to achieve from this project, how does it link to economic benefits? How does it bring value to the citizens, the member of the public. Get really clear about that.

Darren Evans: 3:37

So is that the case already? Are organizations so talking government as well as industry? Are they really clear on that ambition from?

Kevin Masters: 3:45

the start, I don't think they're as clear as they can be. I think ultimately it becomes quite murky with a lot of different sort of competing priorities, let's say so. Then when you get sort of further down the life cycle, if you like, on that project, then certain decisions again are made, which then brings it away from what that core intention was going to be. So that's why I think it's really important to get it very clear right at the beginning and you hold on to that as the core principles as that project does mature.

Darren Evans: 4:10

So is this a case, then, of things being fairly clear, or clear enough, from the beginning, but then, as time moves on, other interested parties muddy the waters.

Kevin Masters: 4:20

I think there's a bit of both. So certainly I think at the very beginning those clear objectives aren't as clear as they could be. I think that again, there's a bit of both. So certainly I think at the very beginning those clear objectives aren't as clear as they could be. I think that again there's a lot of murkiness in terms of OK, what is the strategic outcome that we want to achieve from this, and almost unfortunately have some of those difficult conversations about how you compete against those different things, so whether that is the impact on the environment, whether that's the impact on social outcomes, whatever it might be but have very clear outcomes in terms of how they sort of sit and then ultimately, as you start to run through the project itself, you can then sort of keep focused around what those core objectives are.

Darren Evans: 4:53

Talk to me about the role that you have advising the government. You described that wonderful analogy about you being a marriage counsellor. What is it that you're trying to do for the government to satisfy them or to support them in their responsibility, in their roles?

Kevin Masters: 5:10

Yes, so much of it is about stakeholder engagement, so working with the government and different sort of facets of government you know whether that's central to cabinet, hmt etc. Or the actual government department and the stakeholders within the department itself so helping them to really get very, very clear about what those core objectives are. What is it we want to achieve in this programme Then, ultimately, how do you then change that into a delivery strategy? So how do you engage with the market? Who are the key partners you need to have on board very early and how does that change the maturity of the project? So just get clarity in terms of that stakeholder engagement very much at the very beginning of the project.

Darren Evans: 5:45

So just get clarity in terms of that stakeholder engagement very much at the very beginning of the project. What changes have you seen with the current government based on the previous government? And this question isn't to try and say that one's better than the other, I'm just looking for what changes and shifts that you've seen.

Kevin Masters: 5:58

Yeah, I think it's quite early to tell. I mean because obviously the new government is only just sort of in, in power and and there's a bit of time to be able to sort of come through in terms of what that means and how investment is going to me to be made. But certainly there's some key sort of focuses, you know, of course, around sort of energy and energy security. So I spend a lot of time in my life around that sort of sector, housing as well, particularly around social housing. So we not only need to build a lot of housing but we also need to build them at a point which has got the right quality, meeting the right environmental impacts, sustainability etc. But also at a point that people, general people, can be able to afford as well.

Kevin Masters: 6:34

So definitely a lot of pressure around networks, energy security, housing. So again, the core themes are perhaps very, very but perhaps have the focus in which the new government are placing is perhaps different than perhaps it was in the previous government. I certainly in my interfaces so far there feels like a renewed excuse, the pun, renewed energy around the sort of government departments who have this opportunity to change, to reconfigure, to reset, I suppose in a certain way and come after some of these real thorny issues in a much more driven way perhaps than what has been in the last 18 months, 12 months or so.

Darren Evans: 7:10

Do you think that building new houses is really going to lower the cost of houses and make it more affordable for people to buy?

Kevin Masters: 7:18

Well, I guess you know I'm an engineer, not an economist now, but I guess the fundamental is if you put more available on the market, then there'll be a sort of increased supply versus the demand. So by instinct you'd expect that the price to come down. But of course, it's far more sort of complex from that and, as we talked about before, there are lots of different people and businesses that need to come together to be able to deliver better outcomes. As an engineer and I spent many years designing housing and residential projects I believe there's a lot of inefficiency in the current system, not only in terms of how projects are set up, but also how they're delivered as well, and so I think we can do better. I think the supply chain can do better, I think contractors can do better, I think the way we manage land could be better.

Kevin Masters: 8:01

And again, if we think about it again from the eyes of the citizen, what we're trying to do is is increase the amount of housing, but again at the right quality points, ie the consumers can trust the homes they're buying are at the right quality point. You know they're not going to be full of defects etc. That they are energy efficient. You know we're all going into, unfortunately, by end of summer, about to go into winter. We've heard some pressures around sort of the cost of of energy going into the winter, so people need homes that are cheap to to run. But then again it's also about how you sort of bring bring the best of materials. You know there's lots of innovation in the sector but most of that is still sort of very juvenile. Effectively we need pilots and some examples to be able to get those things more available, if you like, for the general market to be able to use and so I'm wondering now, what approaches you have seen that work really well?

Darren Evans: 8:49

what, yeah, what's worked really well?

Kevin Masters: 8:51

what has worked very well is when you look at the problem as a system and within that system there are multiple participants, multiple businesses, multiple people who are all involved in trying to achieve the ultimate outcome. Where you have good examples is where you have multiple areas of that value chain all working together to achieve that outcome. So maybe, if we perhaps use the housing one as an example, so where you have innovation around how projects are financed and funded, you know there are some very good innovative financers out there looking to put more money in housing, but as long as they can trust what the outcomes are going to be. So again, the quality is right, that they are energy efficient, that we are using local skills, we are levelling up all those right sort of things. So there's innovation within funding.

Kevin Masters: 9:37

There's innovation in terms of how we open sites, projects, particularly around constrained sites. You know there's a big push around how do we increase the amount of affordable homes within city areas and of course, we're in very constrained areas, but there are land parcels which otherwise are undevelopable because of the way the current market is, is sort of stacked up. But you bring together innovative finance, you in, you bring together ways in which you could open that land up, perhaps using modern methods of construction for example. There's all these different sort of facets which all of a sudden you then open up these pieces of land which otherwise aren't going to be developed. So where it works well is where you have those multiple layers of that value chain all working together for the common good.

Darren Evans: 10:19

There's been a lot of talk about that over the last few years, about this collaboration. That's generally the word. That's yes. You know how do we collaborate and we are collaborating. And it seems that, if I'm being honest, it seems as though people can convince themselves that they are collaborating when they're not actually.

Kevin Masters: 10:40

They're more contending than they are collaborating you can see how the sector is sort of set up around, sort of short-term decisions, if you like. Again, different sort of parts of the value chain all need to come together. But if they're all struggling around, how do I keep my business afloat? It's not going to be for the overall benefit of society and of the social outcomes we want to achieve.

Darren Evans: 10:59

So in those scenarios there, just going back to the analogy that you made of you being the marriage counsellor, yes. If, on the one hand, you've got someone that's saying look, I'm struggling to make my business viable under these current conditions, so I'm driven now for short term, you've got the government which is saying something different, whether it's this government or another government.

Darren Evans: 11:20

I don't think is that. Is that relevant? I don't think is that relevant. What do you do to try and bring those two parties together to move forward in a way which has got long-term value?

Kevin Masters: 11:30

Yes, well, it's exactly having those very open and honest sort of transparent conversations. So, for example, from the private sector business owner, the CEO, for example, of a company, is what are the red lines that you are able to be able to operate in? What areas of risk are you able to accept based on your you know core capabilities, on the, on the strategy you have as a, as a business, versus what the government is trying to get from you as a sort of supplier? And and translate those back and forth between them to say to the government well, this is what the market will accept on a reasonable market, versus sort of risk, versus reward, sort of share. So either government needs to come to the table with a different proposition or it needs to prioritize what it's doing in a slightly different way, because clearly, again, a government coming to market with something which the market isn't able to deliver isn't going to do anyone any favors.

Kevin Masters: 12:21

So often it's about sort of relaying both between those two parties what is the art of the possible and trying to sort of broker a sort of an overlap where both parties win to as best possible.

Kevin Masters: 12:32

Again, there'll always be some compromises, but just understanding where those red lines really do sit, because quite often you will find that companies, they'll hide behind the contract so they'll sign up to collaborative clauses, to you know different types of frameworks which all in the veneer have around collaboration and problem-solving. But the reality is when the you know, the tires hit the rubber, so to speak, and this starts to become sort of challenges in delivery and delays and whatever it might be, that's when you really sort of find the sort of true essence of those individual leaders and their ability to be able to resolve those issues. So it's much better to have those upfront discussions very much earlier and you write then the commercial terms and the contract around that, rather than finding out very much later. So again, like the marriage counselling, you know you'd rather have a bit of dating and sort of have those sort of lead-ups before you then sort of find yourself married and a year later you know finding out it's not the right partner for you that's good, I like that analogy.

Darren Evans: 13:25

So, um, you mentioned before about finance and that there are organizations out there you didn't say with a stack of money, but in my, in my imagination, they had a stack of money and they're waiting to put the money into projects that have got, um, the the criteria that they have met in a really, really good way. What advice or what insight can you give into ways that organisations can get access to those types of funds?

Kevin Masters: 13:54

Yeah, I mean I start perhaps with a very broad statement in the sense that, in my experience, there's not a shortage of investment available within construction infrastructure. I think the challenge is that the sector isn't investable as it is at the moment.

Darren Evans: 14:09

What do you mean by that? Because that's a really bold statement. Yeah, what you're saying, if I understand this correctly, is that access to funds is not the issue. Correct, it's the viability of the project that you want access to those funds for. That's what the issue is.

Kevin Masters: 14:22

It's a viability, but it's also the certainty of the outcome.

Kevin Masters: 14:25

So, you know, think of it from your own perspective.

Kevin Masters: 14:27

You know, if you asked to invest some of your own personal money into a project, no matter what it was, but yet the certainty around how much it actually is going to cost, what is actually going to be your return investment, how long would it take to deliver on, that was all like lost in murkiness and, you know, uncertain risk. You're not going to put your money to that I certainly wouldn't. So why would you expect a private institution to do the same? So ultimately, again, there isn't a shortage of money, but it's around. How do you kind of work through what those risks are, what are the things that we know, what are the control measures we can put in place and how do you kind of put the right safeguards in during the maturity of that project to make sure that we are sort of on track with what we should be doing, or at least reporting very transparently of where issues are arising and what we're going to do to address it? That's the point. That's for me, is the? Is the? Is the gap?

Darren Evans: 15:13

I've had a couple of qs's come on um the podcast and they fundamentally said about the same thing, which is when the proposal is put forward in its first instance. Everybody knows around the table that that number is wrong yes and everyone knows that it's far too low.

Darren Evans: 15:32

So it seems, listening to what you've said, it's almost like the emperor is walking around with no clothes on, absolutely. But no one yet has found the child to kind of say, look, he's naked, yes, to the point where everyone's like, oh yeah, we all knew that anyway, but we just didn't want to call it out.

Kevin Masters: 15:47

Yes, well, I guess I mean the sort of challenge is that clients want the project to be successful, they want it to get off the ground, so to speak. So there's a sort of anticipation that if you report the right number the project never gets laid because it never sort of starts in the first place. But again, I think it's far more um successful and, of course, effective to be very open about what the real number is. I think there's also some some commercial um legacy challenges, if you like. Certainly you probably heard the expression around sort of competitive tension um you get.

Kevin Masters: 16:19

Yeah, but just explain what that, what that is yeah, I suppose it's that sort of notion where you know, say, for example, let's do a very simple one, if you wanted to extend your patio at home, for example, you can get one quote from the person that you have been recommended to, from a friend, or you can get three quotes from three different companies and then you can then hold them to account and say, well, joe, for example, said he can do it for five grand less, and Sue said she could do it for 10 grand less.

Kevin Masters: 16:46

You can play those tunes to be able to get the cheapest possible price and to some degree that might work. You might get Sarah or Joe to be able to lower their price by 3,000 pounds. But of course, what that has resulted in is that company now has taken on a project which they probably will make a loss on, or at least at best sort of make costs stack up. So as make a loss on, or at least at best sort of make costs stack up, so as a result, they can look for ways in which they can recover that loss.

Kevin Masters: 17:09

they'll look for ways to I don't know overcharge materials or penalize you, for you know a change in which you you know, perhaps you or your wife said you don't want that stone, you want a different stone.

Kevin Masters: 17:17

So of course they're going to charge you for the additional there. So I think competitive tension is sort of lost in the current sort of way that infrastructure needs to be delivered and the way that citizens need infrastructure to be delivered, and so what I mean by that is having the very again, open and honest conversations about what is the real cost going to be. How do we get the best from all the different sort of components of the supply chain and bring that best to bear? Because even in sort of the tier ones, in the architectural firms, in the engineering, they all have specialisms, they all have areas which they're good at and things that they're less good at. But what tends to happen is we lose the kind of specialisms, if you like, the USPs each of them bring and as a result, we then start to compete very much on the lowest cost, and that's not effective for anybody, it's not effective for that business. It's not effective for that business. It's not effective for, again, the outcome of that project and for society, ultimately, at the other end of it.

Darren Evans: 18:07

And that was the thing that I was going to move on to was this concept of value. Yes.

Darren Evans: 18:12

Because, going back again to the analogy that you used in my patio, what I want is a patio that I can sit and have friends around, family around, maybe have a barbecue and have different activities, but without the patio breaking up or things becoming uneven. So that's valuable to me. But if I just focus on the value which can come in in pound signs or, in other countries, dollar signs or whatever, then that guarantee is not going to be there. I can say Do it for me cheaper, please, and they can say, yes, but surely that trade-off at least in my experience, because I have had this in the past with a drive I was focused on price on my drive.

Darren Evans: 18:55

I had a car that was quite heavy and I said to them are you sure that you can do it for this price? Absolutely, mr Evans, not a problem, not a problem. Three years later, under the guarantee, the drive sunk. I went back and said can you fix my drive because it's sunk? It's not what we agreed. They came back and said oh no, no, we can't do it because your down pipes are running onto the drive and I didn't think that water was going to be going onto your drive. Everyone knows that.

Darren Evans: 19:19

That's not why the drive sunk yes, yes but that was, that was the, that was the pain that I had, right, right, that was lacking value. So I guess my question is where is real value and what's your definition of value?

Kevin Masters: 19:33

Well, I think in your example you've sort of very well articulated the complexity around the definition of value and I think it is very different depending on the beholder, so who's sort of describing it? So in your example, clearly there was a price point that you could afford and you wanted to pay, but also you wanted to sort of enjoy the drive where you had a particular heavy car, et cetera. So ultimately the definition of value needs to be around the outcomes you want to achieve from the particular asset. So if you are a governor within a school, for example, ultimately in terms of developing that value proposition, you have to be very clear about where the tradeoffs are going to be, such that if you are making compromises you're at least doing it with your eyes open, so you know what potentially the impact could be, really articulate what is value for that particular client or stakeholder.

Kevin Masters: 20:26

And as a result, they make choices that are perhaps against that and then they realize at the end of it that it's too late or is then far more expensive to address it. So I think the definition of value chain again what is value has to be articulated at the beginning. It has to be very sort of clear and very specific to the particular asset type and what the client wants to achieve from it clear and very specific to the particular asset type and what the client wants to achieve from it.

Darren Evans: 20:47

What would you say would be the top three things that organizations need to be really clear on before they enter either into a contract or enter into any development?

Kevin Masters: 21:00

So I think certainly I'd be amiss if I didn't sort of say price, so having a clear articulation around the sort of budget in terms of the red lines in which you can go and can't do. So what is the funding envelope? And being very clear about what that is, the risk allocation. So you as a client, for example, what elements of risk are you able to hold, whether that means that you have to bring in some additional protections, whether that's insurance or a team to provide assurance, whatever it might be, but what is it you're able to and what is it you're expecting the supply chain to take as an element of risk? Because certainly cost and the risk distribution is definitely part of it. And I suppose the third is around the broader outcomes you want to achieve. So, whether they are a carbon target, you want to achieve a social value component, whatever it might be. I think those are the three things that you really need to articulate very, very clearly at the very beginning.

Darren Evans: 21:55

Can you just go a little bit deeper on risk? Risk seems a bit of a subjective word. Yes. What types of risks would organizations need to be clear on in order to move forward with something?

Kevin Masters: 22:08

Yes, so I think a common one, for example, is the in-ground risk. So, yeah, it can work to any sort of asset type, whether it's a railway project or a housing project, whatever it might be.

Darren Evans: 22:19

What do you mean by in-ground risks?

Kevin Masters: 22:20

So you know what's below the ground itself. So whether there's contamination, whether there's below the ground itself, so whether there's contamination, whether there's, you know, in london we have a uxo. Unexploded bombs are quite relevant and quite typical in certain parts of london. So the unforeseen, if you like, you know. Yes, we have technologies that can sort of peer below the surface but, um, for the average person who doesn't have the superpowers, you don't know what is buried in the ground. You can have services, services, utilities, those sorts of things.

Kevin Masters: 22:47

So who owns that ground risk? Is it the client, who owns the land itself, or is that risk going to be entirely pushed onto the supply chain? If it is, then there's an element of cost and protection that that supply chain needs to have in place to make sure they are protected against it. So, for example, if you are building a hospital, most hospitals have a single, if not a two-storey, basement, parking and MEP equipment, et cetera. So you're going to be digging a lot in the ground.

Kevin Masters: 23:17

What you don't want to find out later on, once you start that excavation, is again, you found UXO, you found ancient artefacts, you found utilities which need to be diverted. All those things are very expensive. They can provide. They can add a lot on time on the schedule itself. So where does that risk sit? Does it sit with a client who owns the land or does it sit with a supply chain? Just a really clear articulation where that sits and ultimately what you can do together to de-risk that. So it might be that the client, for example, up front, pays for some additional survey work you know some additional boreholes, some, um, some intrusive works, for example to understand what is in the ground and then together they can then establish what that risk is and what is the supply chain able and willing to take on versus, again, what might stay with the client.

Darren Evans: 24:02

Like that, that's good what nuggets of wisdom would you give, using again this analogy of marriage counselling? Before you get married, you go through a dating process. What advice would you give for organisations that are?

Kevin Masters: 24:16

going through this dating process. You can, I'm trying to. I've been married for over 11 years, so the sort of online dating is a bit sort of. Well, I actually never did any of it, to be fair.

Kevin Masters: 24:30

This is completely off wall. But if you're going down that sort of route, you of course, will look at people's profiles and the same as construction. We'll look at tenders and reviews from those sorts of things, but there's nothing like you know, actually going to meet individuals. You know, understanding who are the leaders of these businesses. Are your um, you know your belief systems online with each other? Um, again, the culture, the different businesses do they line up, do they stack up? Can you do business with these people?

Kevin Masters: 24:55

You know, because, again, it is people that are going to make the impact or not, and there's a lot of, like you know, um, I suppose, brain orientated decisions, but there's also some heart in there as well. You know, sometimes we have to go with what our heart is telling us in terms of, based on those discussions, who we think are going to actually be there toe-to-toe when things get rough, to be able to work through challenges and, unforeseen, for example, to get through it to the other end. So I think there's two components of picking your supply chain. One is the traditional tendering process, and it absolutely has to be done and should be done transparently, cheaper and far more effectively. But it's also the humanness aspect. How do the teams operate together? How do we lose the badge as we enter into the collective team and work together to work through the solution and deliver the infrastructure?

Darren Evans: 25:38

I like that you know that concept that you've spoken about there, because I think that in the pursuit of efficiency, we can look at a profile and say, well, I like the way that they've presented themselves, the colors look nice, maybe the video looks good.

Kevin Masters: 25:53

We'll go with those guys yes, well, absolutely and again, but that's that's a component of the decision making. I suppose the message I want to give is that is just one component. The other component is again going to meet the individuals, having a chat with them, whether that is, you know, for coffee, whether it's whatever sort of you know, social environment you want to sort of pick, but meet those individuals or those leaders or those businesses, understand what they, what makes them tick and ultimately, again, if there are challenges that's come up and again, construction is complex. There's lots of challenges like life is very complex. Can you work with those individuals to get through that situation together and stronger?

Kevin Masters: 26:29

Is it going to be a situation where you're left like your driveway example of coming back, you know, within the warranty period, and finding out there's a load of caveats. You don't want a partner like that. You want someone to say look, yeah, we made a mistake, we're going to correct it and this is what we're going to do about it. That's the kind of partnership you want from people what could industry do to make government's job easier?

Kevin Masters: 26:47

I would certainly come back to what I was mentioning earlier, which is being far more clear about the red lines that you are able to operate in.

Kevin Masters: 26:55

There's so many discussions I've been involved in where at the beginning certain commitments and promises were made but yet when the contract comes out and it comes to that sort of crunch line where you've now got signatures or about to put signatures on a page, quite often the governance process of that particular business, particularly the big big one, would never have signed up to that risk in the first place.

Kevin Masters: 27:13

But yet there's been a sort of a courting process, if you like, up to that point to suggest that they would be able to do it. So I think certainly having that very open discussion at the very beginning is very much important. I think clearly articulating the risks that you are able to take on board where there are grey areas and ultimately you know what can you do to help alleviate some of that grey and murkiness for the client. So it might be again, bring in different teams or different specialisms. It might be doing some additional investigation, like I mentioned with the ground risk, for example. It might be you propose some additional boreholes which you might share the cost of, on the basis that the risk is then shared between you because you both have better insight. So I think, rather than sort of just waiting for the risks to materialize, is coming to your client with sort of tangible.

Darren Evans: 28:04

This is the situation, this is what we think is the best situation, best solution to be able to mitigate against the risk of those and in your experience and this is probably a really difficult question for you to answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway in your experience, how understanding or sympathetic are government departments when a private organization comes to them and says look, we honestly, we honestly thought this, but it's not the case and moving forward in this area is no longer viable for us. We need to make some changes and they're going to be costly changes for you. How sympathetic are they to that?

Kevin Masters: 28:39

So I think it's a changing landscape and I think there are some perhaps who have those very traditional belief systems again around competitive tension, squeezing the supply chain. Government shouldn't hold any risk or the risk should be in the supply chain. I don't personally subscribe to that. I think there has to be a better balance of the risk sharing between government and private sector. But I think that culture is sort of changing because, again, if you roll up the sort of quantity of things that we have to build, not only in this country but also on a global scale, we don't have the capacity in the market, we don't have the skills to be able to deliver on the infrastructure and construction pipeline. So fundamentally we need a different approach. You know, build not only again, to replace aging infrastructure, to improve the networks in terms of green the grid, you know, making the energy efficient buildings and assets, etc.

Kevin Masters: 29:35

There's such a phenomenal amount to sort of do this, coming to the market the same blunt instrument of pushing risk all the way down the supply chain is not going to get the outcomes that we need. So there is a changing in government. There is a changing with individuals, who see that there's a different way to procure. You'll see some of that in the tenders that are coming out, where it's not just price. So you haven't got a 70% price, 30%, everything else it's starting to flip the other way. But again, what we do need is more those sort of open conversations around what the supply chain is able to do and where it's not able to do. Only then are we going to be able to start to really move this sort of movement, I suppose, further forward and not keep to where we are at the moment.

Darren Evans: 30:13

What advice are you currently giving the government?

Kevin Masters: 30:14

So again, I think with the current landscape, with a new government, there is this opportunity to reset, to recalibrate, to refocus on where spend should be going. How do we get better outcomes on infrastructure Again, so citizens get a better deal? There's clearly some changes within central government the combination of the IPA with NIC, for example, with NIST to be the new government department.

Darren Evans: 30:43

So can you just clarify IPA and IC?

Kevin Masters: 30:46

Yes, so the Infrastructure and Projects Association and the NIC is the National Infrastructure Commission, I think.

Darren Evans: 30:53

And what do they do?

Kevin Masters: 30:54

So they both work within central government and basically the IPA helped to set blueprints for how major projects are set up at the very beginning, but how they're also delivered. So there's part of it is a kind of guidance. The other part is a certain assurance on behalf of the government to make sure the project's on track, they are delivering the benefits they should be. The NIC is sort of collecting data and evidence, if you like, on again how the performance of capital projects are working and how they can ultimately learn from that. So here is an opportunity where you've got two departments sort of coming together. So there's an opportunity to sort of rewrite the rule book in the sense of how government can support supply chain. Again, it has a huge infrastructure pipeline to be able to build. We need the best of private sector to help to come to that. But what is the service that government need to be able to provide to again broker that better conversation? So is an opportunity to re-look at how it tenders, to re-look at how it sort of gives confidence in the pipeline.

Kevin Masters: 31:52

Confidence in the pipeline is been a particular sort of barrier, you know, particularly with the sort of shadow, I suppose, of an election over the last sort of 12 to 18 months. You know, is there going to be a you know a drive? You know, is there going to be a drive for more hospitals? Is there going to be a drive for more schools? Is it going to be more prisons? You know, was the money going to be allocated and how confident can you be that that supply, that sort of pipeline, is consistent? Again, from a business perspective, if you are a business that works across multiple sector, you want to build teams around where you think the confidence is going to be, around where the market is. You don't want to build up a huge hospital delivery capability if all of a sudden the money is going to be put towards housing or rail or schools or something. So that consistency and that certainty of the pipeline is really important.

Darren Evans: 32:39

What are you hoping that the takeaway message is going to be for those people listening to you, be that your colleagues or people that have never heard from you or seen you before?

Kevin Masters: 32:48

Yeah, I think innovation is perhaps a word which is sort of thrown around, very much similar to collaboration, in the sense that it can be seen as a blunt instrument, if you like, and a bit of a sort of throwaway comment, but very much lacks a substance in terms of delivering on what innovation really means. So, again, I think, within the current climate we find ourselves, clearly we've got to reduce our impact on the planet. Clearly we've got to do more to be able to help the average citizen again, whether that is getting their GP appointment, whether they're getting their dentistry appointment, getting access to the schools and services they need. So there's a real opportunity to kind of look at how the individual, how you within the corporate that you represent, can make different decisions around innovation, Again, whatever that means for your particular skill set to come out with a different outcome.

Kevin Masters: 33:40

We all have our sort of respective agency, if you like, in the way that we make the short choices, the way we come up to work. So if you are that person, for example, that is continuously sort of applying a very blunt instrument approach, here is your opportunity to kind of look at a more innovative approach. So how can you kind of get better from the supply chain. How can you kind of look at maybe that risk allocation isn't quite fair as it currently is. So what is it you can do with the agency that you have to help deliver a better outcome?

Darren Evans: 34:07

What would your message be to a leader of a tier one company?

Kevin Masters: 34:11

I think it's clear to see that the tier one community. It's a tough environment. Margins are low and they haven't been good for some time. There are some outliers perhaps that are doing better than others. My message would be again stick to your knitting. Perhaps.

Kevin Masters: 34:29

Look at the core competencies you have as a business. What is your core foundation of what you do and what you do very well. Focus on that and perhaps the other things where you might have sort of grown into as a result of again perhaps vanity or perhaps an opportunity which hasn have sort of grown into as a result of again perhaps vanity or perhaps an opportunity which hasn't sort of materialized in the way you have. Look at what is core to you and your business and focus effort in that sort of, and I think then the margins are easier to to access um and um more sustainable as a business.

Kevin Masters: 34:58

I think where I, my team and I have sort of come into support tier ones is often where they've sort of grown into areas which are not core to them and they're sort of doing it almost on the side. That is a very risky business, particularly in terms of how projects are set up. As I mentioned all the way through the podcast. There is lots of risk being pushed onto the supply chain. If you're not capable and able to operate and understand those risks, you potentially have your business on the line. So my clear message would be stick to your knitting, stick to what, stick to what is core for you and build your business around that, rather than building on these extra add-ons which don't drive value for your business on a scale of one to ten, ten being absolutely amazing.

Darren Evans: 35:37

How would you? Where would you rate your job at the moment?

Kevin Masters: 35:40

your current role I I would like to say 10, but the sort of, I suppose, competitive person myself thinks there's always another layer, so I would say nine at the moment.

Kevin Masters: 35:50

Okay, I do have a wonderful team around me. I have some great leadership in the firm that I represent. There's huge amounts of freedom in the business that I operate in and there's not a shortage of innovation within the sector that is needed. I can clearly sort of I can without doubt sort of say that I work with some of the most brightest, intelligent people on the planet and working with those individuals is a real sort of privilege. But also someone like me who perhaps again my role as a marriage counselling, but also someone like me who perhaps again my role as a marriage counselling I can kind of thrive off the intelligence of other people in the sense of getting the best out of those individuals and how to bring it together for an overall client sort of delivery. But yeah, I don't have a, I'm not bored in what I do, I don't have a shortage in what I can apply my time on and I think there's just a huge abundance of opportunity out there in the market.

Darren Evans: 36:43

And what advice would you give to someone that is considering their options and maybe thinks construction is all on site, it's all mucky work, it's all dirty stuff and don't really want to get that dirty? I want to be less physical and more mental. Maybe I want to interchange the physical with the mental stuff. From your time in the construction industry and your current role, what insight or what guidance would you give?

Kevin Masters: 37:10

Well, as I said at the beginning, the infrastructure industry is a phenomenal place to be. You know there's so much diversity in terms of what you can do, whether that is different skill sets, whether that's the technology that you can access. It's a very different industry than your typical stereotypical sort of muddy boots in the rain on a December weekend or a Friday, for example. Construction can be operating robotics. It can be the application of AI in terms of driving better productivity in the sector. Construction can be looking within the environment and how you increase biodiversity, on particular land appraisals, for example. There are so many facets to construction and infrastructure. My advice would be to sample the buffet. Just dip your toe into as many of those things as you like and see what sort of sticks But's not a one, um, you know it's not just a one flavor. You know there's lots out there you can really do the kpmg have um a apprenticeship program we do, we do and we support across multiple areas as well.

Kevin Masters: 38:13

So we also have an outreach as well. We've got a prison reoffender program as well. So we have a a couple of ex offenders within our team as well. Um, could we be doing more? Yes, I think so, definitely. Again, we have a very diverse team, not your sort of stereotypical consultants. Again, I wouldn't be one of those sort of typical consultant types, if you like. We have a broad team but, yes, we could be more diverse, for sure.

Darren Evans: 38:36

So when you talk about a diverse team, are you happy to kind of go into a little bit more detail? We kind of go into a little bit more detail. We don't need names or anything like that, but just what is it that makes them diverse and and how they all come together?

Kevin Masters: 38:46

yeah, definitely so. We're. We're diverse in terms of the backgrounds and the skill sets we bring. So I have individuals in my team who come from an audit background, for example, chartered accountants who are now spending their time in infrastructure and construction. I have leaders who have worked client side on on oil and gas. You know females who have worked in a very industry male industry, dominated industry who are now working with us to help leaders to be able to transform their businesses. We have everything from you know, your typical again, your consultants that sort of come from you know, perhaps private education, etc. That may be a stereotypical for kpmg, but we also have people who come from different backgrounds and walks of life as well.

Darren Evans: 39:24

What's the best thing about working for KPMG for you?

Kevin Masters: 39:27

I think that the flexibility and the diversity of the work that we do you know, there's not a single day where I have a meeting which is very similar to the previous meeting or the previous meeting from the day before there's so much sort of room to grow and there's so much sort of area in which we can support. But ultimately it's also having a seat at that sort of executive level table if you like to be able to really influence the very early stages of projects. Again, as an engineer I'd often receive a sort of a brief or a sort of a definition quite late on, so the room in which you can maneuver is quite limited at that point. So the opportunity to be able to bring the knowledge of again how the sector really operates and the challenges there up to the executive board table so that when the decisions are making they are doing it with a real sort of transparency of impact on those decisions, that's a great place to be.

Darren Evans: 40:29

Kevin, it's been good catching up with you. I really appreciate your time and your wisdom. Coming on the podcast, I see the passion within you. Hopefully someone listening as you have said will take what you have said and be able to implement that and apply that, not just for their own good but, I think, for the good of the industry and, ultimately, the country and maybe even the world as well, being that your organization is a global one.

Kevin Masters: 40:45

Indeed, indeed. Well, thank you for having me. I hope this message lands for a few people and you know, take some insight from it and get on board in infrastructure, because it's a wonderful sector to be in.

Darren Evans: 40:55

Just before we do close up, though, is there anything that that we've not discussed that you think would be a good thing to cover off?

Kevin Masters: 41:03

Yeah, maybe just on the global stage. I think within our domestic market, this is the UK itself. There's a lot of information out there around productivity. We very much sort of overlay with aeronautical and automotive around productivity and gains that have happened in that sector. Uk construction sits something like 13.5% below the national average, not alone what the higher performing industries are doing, and we quite often sort of see this as a sort of a UK challenge. And isn't the UK infrastructure industry so bad and so poor, etc.

Kevin Masters: 41:37

But when you look across the global scale and again I have a real privilege of being able to support governments across multiple countries, clients in multiple countries the productivity conundrum isn't a UK challenge at all. You know, I've just come from a trip from Sydney. For example, productivity in Australia is not good either. In fact it's a lot worse than what we have here in the UK. So I suppose my message on a global scale is we do a lot that's really good in the UK. So I think there's an opportunity to sort of lift our heads up a little bit. And yes, there are things that we can do and there's all the innovation we can start to bring. But I think we should be proud about the achievements that we do do and the things that we do do on a regular basis and just share some of that across, because I think, unfortunately, there's a lot in the media around the negative parts of infrastructure.

Kevin Masters: 42:26

You know of infrastructure. You know when you know housing doesn't meet the certain quality points or this capital project has been cancelled by the government or whatever it might be. But let's look at the real achievements that infrastructure has delivered for people and for society. A real life example. So I won't mention his name specifically, but again, when we look at the outcomes on the behalf of the citizens, these individuals who are going to gain as a result of the infrastructure.

Kevin Masters: 42:43

A colleague of mine has a sister who's visually impaired and also has other sort of disabilities a very complex need but yet she was able to take a trip from the north of the UK to London to visit her brother entirely on public transport. That wouldn't have been possible without the kind of transport links that we have in the UK and there's a lot of other countries that don't provide that kind of level threshold, that kind of service, if you like, to provide that journey for the individual. So, again, from the individual lens of the citizen. There's a lot of great news out there, so let's maybe talk about some of that rather than some of the negatives. I love that.

Darren Evans: 43:17

We're not perfect, but we're not terrible. Indeed. That is good. Yeah, that example that you've given of crossrail, there is um, I think I think will will dwarf what could happen with um hs2 if you can connect the north with the south and better connect the north with the north. And I don't know, do you get involved in those types of things as well a little bit?

Darren Evans: 43:40

bit, yes, a little bit and I appreciate that the news feeds and the news publishers and producers jump up and down on the negative, the cost this and this, that and the other. But so many people would use it if it was there.

Kevin Masters: 43:57

Well, again, in that example I gave on the individual and the Crossrail example. So how do you put a price to someone who is now able to come from the north of the UK to meet their brother entirely using public transport? You know that wouldn't have been possible and her needs are such that you know being in a car for that sort of period of time isn't sensible either. You know it's not a, you know, a good journey to sort of have. So there's very little like money you can attach to individuals and they have that sort of mobility that they didn't have before. So yeah, there was a lot of news, good news stories and you know hs2 could be certainly one of those kevin, it's been an absolute pleasure having you on the podcast.

Kevin Masters: 44:32

Appreciate it thank you very much.