The Path to Progress: Why Timely Commissioning and Operationalization Matter

The Path to Progress: Why Timely Commissioning and Operationalization Matter

Introduction

In recent weeks, there has been significant discussion about the status of various government infrastructure projects, particularly those under the Agenda 111 Hospital Project, alongside other key initiatives. A major topic of debate is the current state of these projects—whether they are commissioned, operational, or completed. The concept of commissioning itself appears to be a source of confusion for many.

Commissioning is a critical phase in the lifecycle of infrastructure projects, ensuring that all systems and components are fully ready for operation once construction is complete. Whether it involves a new building, road, or power plant, commissioning verifies that every aspect of the project functions according to design specifications and meets the necessary safety, performance, and regulatory standards.

In infrastructure projects, commissioning serves as a vital bridge between the end of construction and the start of operations. This process helps facilitate a smooth transition from design and construction to operational use. It involves a series of checks and tests to confirm that systems, components, and equipment are functioning as intended. A well-executed commissioning process directly impacts the project’s operational efficiency, safety, and long-term success. It can help prevent costly failures, delays, and safety issues once the project is handed over for use.

Despite the commissioning of several projects in the country—including some under the Agenda 111 initiative—many remain non-operational. Hospitals like those in Ahanta West, Bokoro, and others from the 101 district hospitals, as well as six regional hospitals, stand as examples. These non-operational projects raise questions about the criteria used during commissioning and the overall effectiveness of the process.

Studies consistently highlight the positive correlation between infrastructure development and economic growth. However, without proper operationalization, the potential benefits of these projects remain unrealized, underscoring the need for more effective implementation strategies. This article explores what commissioning is, the process involved, the various dimensions of its value, and the impact of non-operationalization of commissioned projects.

What is Project Commissioning?

Project commissioning is a structured, systematic process designed to ensure that all aspects of an infrastructure project are fully functional and meet the required specifications before being handed over for operation. It involves thorough testing, inspection, and verification to confirm that every system and component works correctly, safely, and efficiently in alignment with the project’s design criteria.

At its core, commissioning aims to achieve three primary objectives:

1. Ensuring Systems Function as Intended: Commissioning verifies that all equipment and systems are properly installed and operate according to the design specifications.
2. Compliance with Standards and Regulations: It ensures the project adheres to safety, environmental, and regulatory standards, guaranteeing compliance with legal requirements and industry best practices.
3. Preventing Future Operational Issues: The process identifies potential issues that could affect the infrastructure’s long-term operation, helping mitigate future problems.

The commissioning process typically includes detailed planning and preparation, verification and testing of installations, functional performance testing, documentation and reporting, followed by handover and training. This structured approach confirms that the project has been delivered to required specifications and is ready to function smoothly, safely, and efficiently.

The Role of Stakeholders and Timing of the Commissioning Process

Commissioning involves several key stakeholders, each playing a crucial role in ensuring the project’s successful completion and functionality:

• Contractors and Subcontractors are primarily responsible for installing systems and equipment and often conduct initial checks and tests during construction.
• Engineers and Consultants—typically external experts—conduct specialized tests, verify compliance with regulatory standards, and help troubleshoot any issues.
• Project Managers oversee the entire commissioning process, managing timelines, resources, and budgets.
• Clients, as the ultimate recipients of the project, are involved in the final inspection and handover process.

Commissioning typically occurs toward the end of the construction phase, after physical works and system installations have been completed but before final handover. This critical phase ensures that infrastructure or systems are fully operational and meet required specifications. Pre-commissioning tasks include functionality, performance, and safety testing, quality assurance checks, and regulatory approvals. Once these steps are confirmed, the project is ready for handover, typically involving documentation and a certificate of completion.

The Importance of Project Commissioning

Project commissioning is crucial for ensuring the functionality, safety, and longevity of infrastructure projects. It guarantees that project deliverables and systems are fully operational and meet required standards, minimizing future operational issues. A well-managed commissioning process helps ensure smooth transitions to operations, enhancing the project’s long-term success.

When commissioning occurs without effective operationalization, it leads to significant economic, social, and developmental setbacks. Globally, there is an infrastructure financing gap, particularly in developing countries. The World Bank estimates that lower- and middle-income countries face an infrastructure financing shortfall of 4.5% of their GDP and indicates that the Africa Region needs to invest approximately 7.1% of its GDP in infrastructure to make meaningful gains.  McKinsey estimates that 80% of infrastructure projects in Africa fail at the feasibility stage due to various reasons. Africa, for instance, invests just 4% of its GDP in infrastructure, compared to 14% in China. The African Union’s Programme for Infrastructure Development (PIDA) requires an estimated $360 billion by 2040 to close the infrastructure gap. 

Ghana is no different in this regard, with an estimated $45 billion needed by 2040 to address its infrastructure deficits. Annual investments of over $7 billion is needed over the next ten years to bridge it. However, bureaucratic delays, political changes, and inadequate investment propositions often prevent projects from becoming operational, thus failing to deliver their intended economic and social benefits.

In the case of the Agenda 111 project, hospitals like Trede, Kokoben, and Ahanta were commissioned but remain non-operational, requiring significant additional investments (circa $8.03 million each) to become fully functional. If these projects are not swiftly operationalized, they risk exacerbating the infrastructure gap and hindering economic growth. The focus should be to speedily put to use commissioned projects to be able to exact the project benefits.

Effects of Delayed Operationalization of Projects

Delaying the operationalization of commissioned projects can have several detrimental effects across various sectors:

1. Economic Impacts:
   • Reduced Return on Investment (ROI): Delays prevent projects from generating the expected economic benefits such as delayed revenue generation and provision of social services, thereby prolonging the period before financial returns are realized.
   • Wasted Resources and Increased Costs: Prolonged inactivity leads to wasted labor, materials, and management costs. Additionally, maintenance costs for idle projects (e.g., security, insurance, depreciation) can erode the project’s value.
   • Negative Impact on GDP Growth: Delayed operationalization of infrastructure projects hinders national or regional economic growth, leading to inefficiencies and higher business operating costs.
2. Social Impacts:
   • Missed Development Goals: Many infrastructure projects are designed to address urgent social needs such as providing clean water, education, roads, or healthcare facilities. Delays mean communities continue facing these unmet needs.
   • Social Discontent and Frustration: Public dissatisfaction and frustration can arise when projects that were commissioned but not operationalized fail to address critical community needs.
   • Limited Access to Services: The delayed operationalization of healthcare, water, or transportation infrastructure postpones the benefits that could improve quality of life, particularly for vulnerable groups.
3. Organizational and Governance Impacts:
   • Erosion of Credibility: Delays damage the reputation of the government and contractors, leading to reduced trust and confidence in future projects.
   • Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Delays: Ineffective governance often causes delays, resulting in poor project delivery and lack of accountability.
   • Ineffective Utilization of Resources: Non-operational projects signify that significant resources are being underutilized, missing opportunities for wider public and economic benefits.
4. Environmental Impacts:
   • Increased Environmental Degradation: Prolonged inactivity can lead to the deterioration of infrastructure due to weathering, corrosion, or wildlife damage.
5. Delayed Job Creation:
   • Longer Unemployment Periods: Delayed projects also delay the creation of jobs in both construction and operational phases, stalling overall economic recovery and employment growth. People who were supposed to work during the operation phase will have to wait.
6. Technological and Strategic Challenges:
   • Technological Obsolescence: Technology-based infrastructure may become outdated during delays, requiring additional investments to upgrade systems.
   • Strategic Inefficiencies: Delayed operationalization may cause broader cascading strategic delays, such as healthcare delivery or transportation improvements, hindering national development plans.

Conclusion

The delayed operationalization of commissioned projects undermines the entire objective of infrastructure investments, with far-reaching economic, social, environmental, and organizational consequences. For developing countries like Ghana, these delays are even more harmful given the infrastructure deficits and high demand for basic services.

Addressing these delays requires robust governance, timely execution, and effective resource management. The goal should be to transition commissioned projects into operational status as swiftly as possible, enabling them to deliver the intended benefits and support national growth.

References

1. Home – Agenda 111
2. Global Review of Public Infrastructure Funds; PIF_Global_Review-Volume_I_-_final.pdf 
3. Infrastructure Deficit and Opportunities in Africa; Economic Brief – Infrastructure Deficit and Opportunities in Africa
4. The Impact of Infrastructure Development on Economic Growth in sub-Saharan Africa with special focus on Ghana: De-Graft Owusu Manu et al, 2019
5. Infrastructure in Africa: Infrastructure | African Development Bank Group
6. President Akufo-Addo Commissions Agenda 111 Hospitals – DailyGuide Network
7. McKinsey & Company, see section headed “Closing Africa’s infrastructure gaps”, Solving Africa’s infrastructure paradox,  
8. Only 1 Agenda 111 hospital was completed by Akufo-Addo – Mahama
9. Infrastructure development in Ghana, the role of PPP; Talkbook portrait template