Published
At the Major Projects Association, we closely monitor emerging policy and strategic reviews to identify what matters most for those designing, delivering, and operating major projects. One such document of significant interest is the UK Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy 2025 paper published today.
While it may not grab the headlines like last week’s 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy or the Prime Minister’s recent “Plan for Change”, this review sheds light on the deeper economic logic shaping government action. In this blog, we explore how the Industrial Strategy — and its evolution — affects the way we think about major projects, especially through the lens of interconnectedness between people, place, and sectors.
A tale of two strategies: place vs sector
One of the most striking contrasts today is how the 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy and the Industrial Strategy approach the UK’s economic and social future from different, but complementary, angles.
The Infrastructure Strategy is distinctly place-based. It champions regional investment, connectivity, and the empowerment of devolved institutions. It views infrastructure as the enabler of growth, resilience, and inclusion in local contexts.
The Industrial Strategy, on the other hand, is more sector-based. It targets areas of economic productivity such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and life sciences. It seeks to stimulate innovation, boost skills, and align industry with long-term missions like net zero.
What’s becoming clear is that the success of either strategy depends on the other. For major projects, this convergence demands a new mindset — one that treats sectoral innovation and regional delivery not as separate silos, but as part of a whole-system approach.
Interconnectedness: beyond infrastructure as an asset
The Industrial Strategy challenges us to see infrastructure not as a standalone asset, but as a networked enabler of wider transformation.
For example:
– A transport megaproject is no longer just about mobility — it’s about labour markets, supply chains, and skills ecosystems.
– Energy infrastructure isn’t just about capacity — it’s central to industrial decarbonisation, housing policy, and regional regeneration.
– Investment in digital networks underpins everything from AI adoption to rural development.
In this light, major projects are not isolated interventions, but part of a highly interdependent system. This raises the bar for how we scope, plan and govern them. The review’s focus on productivity and institutional coordination is especially relevant here: it calls for stronger integration between Whitehall departments, local authorities, and industry consortia — all critical actors in the project ecosystem.
This theme of interconnectedness is also at the heart of our forthcoming Annual Conference. We will be exploring how systemic thinking and integrated delivery models can unlock new value from infrastructure and major programmes, and how the alignment of sectors and places can accelerate progress on national missions. Bookings will open soon.
Implications for delivery: from missions to milestones
The Prime Minister’s “Plan for Change” laid out five government missions with measurable targets to be achieved within this parliament. These include goals around:
- Economic growth and investment
- Net zero transition
- Skills and productivity
- Infrastructure modernisation
- Technological leadership
The industrial strategy functions as a key policy bridge linking these missions to delivery frameworks. It outlines how industrial policy can support mission-driven innovation, especially in areas like clean growth, digital transformation, and resilient supply chains.
For major project leaders, this raises several implications:
1. Mission alignment – Projects will increasingly be assessed not just on traditional business case metrics, but on how they contribute to the broader missions.
2. Cross-sector collaboration – Delivery models must account for interdependencies between health, energy, transport, and digital sectors.
3. Long-term governance – Projects should be designed with governance mechanisms that can adapt as policy missions evolve.
Skills, institutions and the capability challenge
The review brings into sharp focus the persistent capability gap in both public and private sectors. While it highlights existing strengths in places like the UK Infrastructure Bank and Catapult centres, it also calls for:
- Strengthening local delivery capacity
- Enhancing data sharing and standards
- Reforming procurement to reward innovation and value creation
Major projects, particularly at scale, will only succeed if the institutions that oversee them are equipped, connected, and aligned. Building such institutional capability is not a ‘nice-to-have’ — it’s mission-critical.
Looking ahead: navigating the intersections
Taken together, the industrial strategy review, the 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy, and the Government’s overarching Plan for Change offer a comprehensive — if complex — blueprint for the UK’s future. But that blueprint will only be realised through major projects that can operate at the intersections of place, sector, and mission.
At the Association, we will continue to explore what this means in practice: how delivery models must evolve, how leadership must adapt, and how systems thinking can help projects become more than the sum of their parts.
If you would like to discuss how your project or organisation is responding to these strategic shifts, we invite you to join one of our upcoming roundtables (keep an eye on our Events programme), attend the Annual Conference, or share your reflections with the Major Projects Association network.