By Nikki Thompson, senior writer at GlobalData

A megaproject dashboard should help an executive identify where to take action. However, when finance and delivery teams attend the same meeting with conflicting performance reports, the conversation shifts to reconciling the numbers. Meanwhile, decision-making stalls as teams debate which data to trust.

This is where the difference between project technology and actual performance becomes clear. Software can consolidate information, but it cannot settle conflicting definitions or determine responsibility for developing issues. Those responsibilities fall to management discipline.

In large projects throughout the Middle East and North Africa, the key challenge is integrating digital reporting into daily programme management. This involves linking information across organisations and ensuring clear responsibility and authority to respond.

A single source of truth starts with a shared understanding of what the numbers mean

Why Mena megaprojects need reliable project data

GlobalData’s Construction Risk Index Quarterly Update for Q4 2025 puts Mena’s regional risk score at 53.09, above the global average of 49.71. However, conditions vary considerably: the UAE scores 25.25, Saudi Arabia 39.33 and Egypt 63.45. The report also emphasises how inflation and currency pressures influence construction cost predictability in Egypt. It notes supply-chain disruptions and higher logistics costs as risks linked to regional geopolitical instability. For megaproject teams, the challenge is translating these external pressures into an understanding of how they affect specific contracts and work packages.

For example, with an equipment delay, procurement may record a revised delivery date. However, the construction schedule may still reflect the original arrival, and the cost forecast may not account for the extra site overheads. Each team has its own version of the events, but the overall cost and schedule exposure remains understated. Linking these records helps identify which activities are impacted and what actions could mitigate the issue. Teams might resequence work or reallocate resources. Without this connection, a minor disruption can escalate unnoticed until it appears in the monthly report.

Project controls for reporting credibility

A single source of truth starts with a shared understanding of what the numbers mean. Teams must agree on common definitions of progress and expenditure, along with reporting dates that enable meaningful comparisons across packages. For instance, one contractor might track progress by installed quantities, while another reports expenditure against the budget. Mixing these figures without accounting for their differences creates a seemingly accurate measure that offers little real insight into delivery for executives.

Consistent coding structures ensure contracts and costs link to the work they support, while data owners should verify the accuracy of information entered into the reporting process, focusing on missing updates and unexplained variances rather than passing these issues to the next dashboard. Change control is equally important: a revised forecast must show how approved changes affect the baseline and distinguish them from unresolved exposure. Without this, a seemingly positive cost position might hide omitted liabilities rather than indicate better performance.

These controls enable executives to question the forecast effectively. They should identify what has changed since the last review, understand why it matters, and determine who is responsible for the response. Uncertainty should be clearly visible to support decision-making, even if the final impact on cost or schedule has not yet been confirmed.

Consistent adoption and integrated platforms

The quality of a central platform declines when teams make key decisions outside it. Private forecasts and isolated spreadsheets can render official reports outdated compared with what individual teams already know. Adoption must therefore extend beyond initial training. Workflows should mirror how people submit and approve information, clarifying responsibilities at each step. Programme leaders should use the approved performance view during reviews and address discrepancies through the same process.

A good starting point is a key work package that links commitments, actual costs and forecast expenditure. Demonstrating how this information improves procurement or funding decisions motivates teams to maintain it. Success should be measured by practical improvements: less reconciliation work and earlier escalation of material risks to the responsible decision-maker. Tracking platform usage alone does not establish either outcome.

Contruent is purpose-built for project controls, bringing cost, schedule and performance together in a single platform with standardised workflows and forecasting. Their change management system links changes to scope, cost and schedule, incorporating approval workflows and audit trails. The effectiveness of these tools hinges on reliable support for programme decisions. Successful integration depends on established mappings between systems, while accurate forecasts rely on individuals recording changes promptly and critically evaluating assumptions.

For Mena megaproject owners, closing the technology gap involves turning reports into actionable insights. An effective performance review ends with well-understood risks, a designated decision-maker, and a clear, measurable response. Digital tools are most valuable when they facilitate this process earlier in the cycle.

Related webinar: Join Contruent and MEED on Thursday 22 October to explore how integrated project controls, trusted data and executive visibility can improve delivery certainty across GCC giga and megaprojects. Register here today!