By Suzette van der Walt, Associate, Infrastructure Advisory
Infrastructure decisions are rarely made in neat, logical sequences. More often, by the time a project is properly interrogated, a great deal has already been set in motion: budgets, timelines, expectations. At that point, the question is no longer what is the best solution? But rather, what can we still influence?
That reality shapes outcomes more than is often acknowledged.
One of the concepts that comes up repeatedly in this space is “bankability”. It is usually treated as a financial question: can this project attract funding, and does it generate a return?
That framing makes sense in certain contexts. But for a large portion of public infrastructure, particularly where there is no direct revenue stream, it does not fully hold.
Because the value is there. It is just not always captured in a way that fits neatly into financial models.
The uncomfortable middle
Most infrastructure decisions sit in the space between three sets of priorities:
- the public sector, with its mandate to deliver services and long-term value
- the market, which requires clarity on risk and return
- and the technical perspective, which focuses on what is feasible and deliverable
This “uncomfortable middle” is where most real decisions are made, balancing competing pressures that do not naturally align.
None of these perspectives is wrong. But they are not easily reconciled.
The result is often projects that are technically sound and financially defensible but fail to deliver meaningful outcomes. Or projects with clear developmental value that struggle to progress because they do not meet the right criteria early on.
It is rarely a failure. More often, it is infrastructure that performs but does not fully realise its intended impact.
Value doesn’t always show up where we expect it
A significant portion of public infrastructure creates value in indirect ways.
Reliable transport systems improve access to employment. Basic services such as water and energy reduce long-term pressure on healthcare and social systems. Bulk infrastructure can unlock private investment by making development viable in the first place.
These dynamics are well understood.
What is less often acknowledged is that these outcomes do not arise simply because infrastructure exists. They depend on how well that infrastructure aligns with real patterns of behaviour, demand, and use.
Even small misalignments can result in assets that are technically sound but underutilised or poorly integrated. The potential for value is there, but it is not realised.
So, the question is not only whether something is bankable in the financial sense. It is whether it is positioned to deliver value over time and under what conditions.
Working with uncertainty
Answering those questions introduces uncertainty.
Public sector processes are, understandably, designed to manage risk, ensure accountability, and support clear decision-making. But the environments in which infrastructure operates are not static. Demand shifts. Behaviour changes. Assumptions do not always hold.
This creates a fundamental tension: the need for certainty at the point of commitment, versus the uncertain conditions that ultimately shape value.
Ideally, this is addressed early, while there is still flexibility to respond. In practice, that window is often smaller than it should be, or has already passed.
Working with what’s left
In practice, much of the work we do sits in that constrained space.
Not at the very beginning, with a blank sheet, but somewhere in the middle, where some decisions are already fixed, and others remain just flexible enough to influence.
At that point, the focus shifts:
- Which assumptions are we still comfortable with?
- Where do we still have room to adapt?
- What trade-offs are actually being made?
- How do we avoid closing off options too early?
The interventions are often incremental, adjusting sequencing, refining scope, or making dependencies more explicit. But these relatively small shifts can have a disproportionate impact on long-term performance.
A design approach to integration
This is where a design-led approach becomes valuable.
Not design in the sense of drawings or form, but as a way of structuring and working through complex problems. Coming from an architectural background, this way of thinking involves holding multiple constraints in parallel, testing ideas, and iterating toward solutions that resolve competing pressures without oversimplifying.
In this context, it becomes about connecting the perspectives represented in the diagram:
- linking financial viability and public outcomes
- aligning technical solutions with actual patterns of use
- and bridging the gap between planned intent and real-world performance
It is not about replacing any one perspective, but about enabling them to engage more effectively before decisions become fixed.
So, what does “bankable” really mean?
Perhaps it is less about whether a project can attract funding and more about whether it stands a strong chance of delivering the value it is intended to create.
That includes financial sustainability, as well as broader outcomes: enabling economic participation, reducing long-term system pressures, and unlocking value beyond the project itself.
Expanding that definition does not make decisions easier. If anything, it makes them more complex.
But it also makes them more, ultimately, more impactful.
