In Common Law jurisdictions, liquidated damages are a pre-agreed sum of money stipulated in a contract that one party must pay to the other as compensation for breaching a contractual obligation. They are often used in construction contracts to cover delays, but can also be applied to other breaches. LDs can be beneficial for both parties, they provide certainty, reduce the risk of disputes, and cap the amount of damages preventing an unlimited claim.

Key aspects of liquidated damages (LDs) are:

Pre-agreed amount: The amount payable for a breach is fixed in the contract, rather than being determined later based on the actual damages suffered – typically a set number of dollars per day.

Focused on compensation: LDs are meant to compensate the non-breaching party for the loss or damage caused by the breach, not to punish the breaching party.

Genuine pre-estimate: To be enforceable, liquidated damages must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered, meaning there is no need to prove actual loss.

Courts will generally uphold liquidated damages clauses unless:
–  They are excessively high and consequently deemed to be a penalty, or
–  They are nominal and clearly do not compensate for the breach of contract.

In deciding whether a liquidated damages clause is enforceable, or void as a ‘penalty’, the Australian courts have broadly applied the ‘Dunlop’ test[1] (does the clause represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be incurred by one party where the other party had committed a particular breach of the contract).

In Australia, setting LDs at $0 in a contract has been seen as unenforceable since at least 2009 when the WA Supreme Court found in J-Corp[2] the clause did not stand in the way of the owner’s entitlement to prove general damages.

This principle has been extended to nominal amounts of LDs by the NSW Court of Appeal in Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 192[3].  The Court considered whether a nominal liquidated damages clause (AU$1 per day) in a construction contract prevented the owners from claiming general damages for delays. The Court ultimately ruled that J-Corp was not distinguishable and should be followed. Finding a LDs clause that limits a party’s liability for liquidated damages to a nominal amount when compared with the contract sum will not, on its own, exclude the aggrieved party’s right to claim common law damages for delay.

This problem seems to occur most often in housing contracts, using a standard form of contract which is typically completed by the builder (or developer) for signature by the client.  The Court stated there was no reason for a clause in an standard contract, which contains regimes to relieve the builder from delays outside of its control, “to leave an owner with a nominal return in circumstances where the builder fails to adhere to its promised timing and the owner can establish loss caused by the builder’s delay”

Clear and express language must be used to exclude a party’s liability for common law damages for delay when LDs are intended to be the principal’s sole remedy for a delay in completion by the builder, and include clear drafting to reflect the negotiated position.

What remains to be seen is what sums are considered nominal in future, this will depend on circumstances and the value of the contract, but unless the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss that will be suffered by the client (ie, Principal), such as rental payments or interest on monies borrowed any nominal sum is likely to be at risk.

Watch this space…………..  (bur remember this is not ‘new law’ simply a restatement of a 100+ year old principal).

For more on contract management see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-PBK-050.php

[1] The ‘Dunlop’ test, originating from the 1915 case Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd, as a legal principle used to determine if a liquidated damages clause in a contract is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and therefore enforceable, or a penalty.  For a summary see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF-Casewatch/1034_Dunlop-v-New_Garage.pdf

[2] J-Corp Pty Ltd v Mladenis (2009) WASCA 157.  In J-Corp, the clause in the contract provided that if the builder did not complete the works on time “it shall be liable to pay the Proprietor liquidated damages at the rate of NIL DOLLARS ($0.00) per day”.  The clause did not stand in the way of the owner’s entitlement to prove general damages if the builder breached its obligation to complete within the time specified as there was no clear intention to exclude an entitlement to claim and prove unliquidated damages.

[3] For a summary of Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 192, see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF-Casewatch/1190_Carbone-v-Fowler-Homes.pdf 

Praxis a free, open-source framework that brings together the core elements of project, programme, and portfolio management (P3M) into one unified approach. Unlike traditional methodologies that rely on static content, Praxis Framework evolves in real-time based on industry feedback, making it adaptable to the challenges modern organisations face.

But that’s not all—Projecting Success is working with Praxis to take things even further. By integrating data schemas, standards, and reusable solutions, they are creating a more data-driven, knowledge-sharing ecosystem that enhance project delivery with standardised analytics and embedded automation.

This collaboration will power Marvin, Praxis’ AI-powered community agent, with even more deep expertise, and the Praxis team are launching an open-source solution centre where the community can contribute, collaborate, and innovate.

It’s an exciting journey to transform project delivery together—by the community, for the community.  We are pleased to have played our part, making most of the information available at https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI.php available to Praxis and Marvin.  

For more see:  https://www.praxisframework.org/  and For Marvin: https://llmjonah.azurewebsites.net/#/chat/ or  
https://www.aipmo.org/marvin-ai/

Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects

The message is simple – you do not need a CPM schedule to assess delay and disruption if your project is not working to a CPM schedule. This is most agile projects and many others. But you do need information to support the claim and a viable approach to assessing the delay.

My presentation to PC Expo on Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects is now on line as part of the PC Expo library at: https://projectcontrolexpo.com/aus/past_events/project-controls-expo-australia-2024

A direct link to the recording is at: https://vimeo.com/1038435829  

The full paper can be downloaded from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#ADD

But what exactly does without prejudice mean – we suggest not as much as many people think!

The Supreme Court in NSW Supreme Court[1], in Duffy Kennedy Pty Ltd v Galileo Miranda Nominee Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 25 has confirmed that the rules pertaining to without prejudice communications apply to legal proceedings (court cases and Arbitrations), and only serve to prevent the admission of evidence that was offered by one party to the other on a without prejudice basis, provided it is attached to written or verbal communication made by a party to a dispute in a genuine attempt to settle that dispute. 

This rule of evidence has no effect on other contractual and administrative processes! Which means, if you want to have a meeting or make an offer that is only valid if it leads to a settlement, or other agreed outcome, different processes are needed.

Mediations are generally confidential processes and normal practice is for everyone involved to sign a binding nondisclosure agreement prohibiting the disclosure of anything said within the mediation to anyone else. The signed agreement sets up a contract between everyone involved that can be used to sanction unauthorized disclosure.

Typical mediation agreements limit disclosure to a statement the mediation occurred on a date and any other statement that the parties agree to release such as the settlement if there is one.  Commercially, the problem with this approach to nondisclosure agreements is both parties need to agree and sign the agreement before the communication you want protected is made. 

Another option may be to qualify the offer or statement stating this offer is only valid if certain conditions are met (typically with a time limitation). This qualification may prevent the use of the information, but does not make the communication confidential.

This decision demonstrates the need for contract managers to manage the disclosure of sensitive information carefully and balance the process used, the risks, and the potential benefits – whatever you do needs to be strategic, deliberate, and well-considered.

For more on negotiation see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-TPI-010.php#Negotiating

[1] This judgement in NSW has direct implications across Australia. It is also likely to represent the situation in most other countries that use the Common Law.

The development of EVM in the 1960s had two basic objectives:

1. Establishing a set of criteria for the purpose of benchmarking the contractors proposed management structure, and assessing the overall capability of the contractor’s proposed project management team.  The purpose being to provide a level of comfort to the client that the team, and team structure assigned to the project was fit for purpose and capable of delivering a successful outcome.
    
2. Implementing an impartial performance management assessment process to determine areas of the project where management performance was adequate and those where improvement was needed to achieve the project’s objectives.

Many of the early projects applying EVM were cost plus, so the client had an interest in both cost performance and productivity. For more on the origins of EVM see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-020.php#EVM

Current Status

Judging from a long running email discussion over the holidays, in some jurisdictions the implementation of EVM seems to have lost the plot, it has become:
–  Prescriptive and intensely bureaucratic.
–  Focused on cost over performance
(actual cost is an outcome of performance, not an input)
–  The domain of EVM experts on both sides, largely ignored by management.

Rather than helping project performance the cost and effort needed to run EVM in these jurisdictions is seen as a liability. There are exceptions to the above but the tendency to treat EVM as a cost management tool (it is not, and there have been better ways to manage costs in use for well over 100 years) and/or as a client-imposed reporting function with the focus on fastidious detail, seems widespread*.

Work Performance Management

Work Performance Management (WPM) is a solution to part of the issues outlined above.  The methodology:

1. Divides the project into manageable ‘Work Units’ (WU)
   
2. Uses work outputs to assess planned and actual performance in real time
   
3. Based on the variance, calculates the current time variance and projected completion of the WU

Other project controls functions remain important and will run at their own speed, the objective of WPM is to provide useful management information within 1 or 2 days of the end of each reporting period to allow management actions to be planned and implemented.

For more on WPM see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PC-3-00-Overview.php

Cartoon is one of many by Ken Burrell of the PMO Professionals: https://www.thepmoprofessionals.com/

*Note: The practical application of EVM based on the principles in ISO 21508 also avoids most of the issues briefly outlined above. For more on the practical application of Easy EVM see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-040.php

Over the last month or so there have been a couple of on-line discussions around the need for detailed planning and the concept of progressive elaboration.  Unfortunately, a lot of the commentary came from people little knowledge of complex engineering projects.

As a starting point, we agree there is little need for detailed planning if the project outcome can be changed as needed to meet current circumstances, perceptions, or changes in management focus.  This is typical of many smaller business projects and most IT projects. One only has to look at the evolving capabilities of the F35 fighter (most of which is software enabled) to see this in practice.

However, there are many other projects where you get one chance to get both the design and the project work correct.  This post is looking at a couple of examples of this type of project (all involving Eiffel, in France).

The Millau Viaduct

This year is the 20^th anniversary of the opening of one of the worlds most impressive bridges on the 16^th December 2004.  The bridge is 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) long and built on a curve of 20Km radius.  The tallest pylon is higher than the Eiffel Tower!

The steel sections for the curving road deck were manufactured by Eiffel Constructions métalliques in NE France and shipped to the construction site in France’s Central Massif.   Then the 36,000 tons of road deck was assembled on plateaus at either end of the viaduct, and progressively pushed out onto the pylons using bridge launching techniques to meet in the middle. 

This method of construction had a major influence on the engineering design, and once designed, every component had to be precisely manufactured and painted before delivery to the site for assembly and then launching to eventually meet in the middle with millimeter accuracy. Very precise GPS tools were used to achieve the accuracy needed in three dimensions.  

The evolution of the design from its original concept of 9 piers, to the final design of 7 piers with a single set of cable stays on the centerline, to the detailed design of the 173 deck sections, each with a slight curve, is typical progressive elaboration. A similar process occurs in the development of almost all engineering and architectural designs.  But this concept is far from new.

The Garabit viaduct

The Garabit viaduct is a railway arch bridge spanning the Truyère, near Ruynes-en-Margeride, Cantal, France, in the mountainous Massif Central region. The bridge was constructed between 1882 and 1884 by Gustave Eiffel.

The bridge is made out of wrought iron elements[1], each of which was cut, drilled and prefabricated into components off-site and then shipped to site for erection.  As can be seen in the image below, the planned construction sequence had a major impact on the design; not only did every piece of iron need to be precisely designed before it could be manufactured, the design also had to take into account the construction loads and the temporary elements needed to maintain stability until the bridge was complete.  In the 1880s this was all manual drafting.

The success of this project was one of the factors influencing the Paris authorities to commission Gustave Eiffel to design and build the Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel Tower was built in record time, from January 28, 1887 to March 31, 1889, taking only two years, two months, and five days. 

Eiffel used the same approach as on the Garabit viaduct. This original sketch design was progressively elaborated into 5300 detail design drawings. Then each piece of iron was cut, drilled, and assembled into sections before being delivered to site for assembly. The total weight of iron in the structure is around 7300 tones.

The relatively small number of detail drawings was achieved by the extensive use of standardized components. Eiffle was paying 5 out of the estimated 6.5 million Franc construction costs (in return for ticket sales and other revenues over the next 20 years) and was focused on efficiency.

However, with up to 300 workmen on site, the supply chain from detailed design, to fabrication, to assembly, delivery, and erection needed very careful planning and coordination. Precisely how this was achieved is an open question, but the build time of just over 2 years suggests the processes used were effective.

For more on the history of construction management see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2

Conclusion.

Progressive elaboration is simply the function of adding more detail to a plan of any type, until there is adequate information to allow work to start. The term was used occasionally in the latter part of the 19^th century and through the 20^th (Google Ngram), but only really came to prominence after it was included in the original PMBOK Guide in 1996 in relation to developing the project management plan.

There is no requirement for the whole plan to be at the same level of detail, but you do need adequate detail in the areas you intend working on next. This applies to most design processes and to many project management processes such as Rolling Wave Planning.  The concept of progressive elaboration is one of adding necessary detail, it does not involve changing the plan.

How changeable a plan is depends on the physical constraints of the product being developed. In the case of the Eiffel Tower, once the engineering design was firmed up, there was virtually no option for changing the overall shape of the tower. However, the design of the facilities on the three public viewing levels was open to change until work on the kiosks, etc., started. The only constraints being the physical shape of the platforms, and the weight imposed by the buildings. Over the years there have been many changes in this aspect of the tower. 

The same concepts apply to the two bridges, once the design is set, change is either impossible or very costly, therefor it is essential to have the design locked down before any work is started. Finalizing all of the details may continue after the basic design is set (progressive elaboration). However, while the detailing of individual joints, cables, connections, etc., does not change the overall design, the detailed plan for a component has to be finished and 100% correct before cutting any iron or steel.

One of the key aspects of setting the project strategy is understanding the relationship between these two aspects and how relevant they are to the project you are planning. From this understanding, decisions on  how the project will be developed and delivered can be made.  

For more on developing the project strategy see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-011.php#Overview

[1] Wrought Iron has a higher tensile strength than Cast Iron and its production allows greater quality control. This made Wrought Iron the preferred material for bridges and similar structures in the 19^th century until the development of the blast furnace, allowing steel to be manufactured in commercial quantities.

Simply relying on an answer from an AI system is a recipe for disaster as the paraphrased Q&A session with CoPilot below demonstrates.  The LLM tools do not have intelligence, they match language patterns to construct an answer from the most common matching patterns in the billions of pages of data on the internet.

The tools have progressed, most of the time their answers are referenced but many references on the internet are simply wrong; this is before you get into dealing with matters of opinion. 

To address this problem, the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and similar bodies in NSW and WA have jointly issued a statement to guide lawyers in their responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI).  The statement requires lawyers who are using AI to consider:

• developing clear, risk-based policies to minimize data and security breaches;
  
• limiting the use of AI tools in their practice to lower-risk tasks, such as an initial draft of an email, and not using AI for higher risk tasks, like translating legal advice into another language; and
  
• being transparent about their use of AI, and disclosing to their clients and the court when and how they have used the technology – where necessary or mandated by the rules of court.

This advice should be considered by all professionals using AI and can be downloaded from: https://www.lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-use-artificial-intelligence-australian-legal-practice   Your PI insurances are unlikely to cover the random use of AI and if the AI gets it wrong, you will be liable.

However, there is no question AI is both useful and becoming mainstream, the problem is you need to know enough to know when the initial response is a commonly held misconception (ie, wrong) and how to validate the initial answer.  The example below is a good demonstration.

Paraphrasing a ‘conversation’ between David Bordoli (UK) and CoPilot.

For the record:

1. Bar Charts were developed and being used for over 100 years before Henry Gantt’s work
2. Gantt’s work was focused on factory production and improving the efficiency of machine shops.
3. Gantt’s work never involved anything to do with project management.
4. Gantt was not involved in the construction industry.

To validate these statements, see the original resources and analysis at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-025.php

The conversation (paraphrased):

David: Who popularized the bar chart for use in the construction industry?

CoPilot: The bar chart, also known as the Gantt chart, was popularized for use in the construction industry by Henry L. Gantt. He developed and promoted this project management tool between 1910 and 1915. Gantt charts have since become a widely used method for visualizing project schedules, especially in construction projects.

David: The term ‘Gantt Chart’ was not used until after Gantt had died.

CoPilot: You’re right! The term “Gantt Chart” was indeed coined after Henry L. Gantt’s death.

David: But the charts in ‘Work wages and profits’ were not time/activity charts in the construction industry.

CoPilot: That’s a great observation. In Henry L. Gantt’s book “Work, Wages, and Profits” (published in 1916), the charts he included focused more on measuring worker efficiency and productivity rather than the time/activity charts we associate with modern project management in the construction industry. The specific time/activity Gantt charts that became widely used in construction and other industries evolved from Gantt’s work.

David: In October 1915 edition of ‘Armierter Beton’ (German) a bar chart was shown which proves bar charts were fully developed and in use before Gantt used similar, but not construction orientated, charts in his work

CoPilot: That’s a fascinating piece of history! You’re correct. The October 1915 edition of “Armierter Beton” did indeed feature a bar chart used for a construction project.

David: So why do you say bar charts used in the construction industry were popularized by Gantt when he never even worked in the construction industry

CoPilot: You’re right. Henry Gantt himself didn’t work in the construction industry, and his original charts were not specifically designed for construction projects. The popularization of bar charts, or Gantt charts, in project management broadly often gets attributed to him because his work laid the groundwork for the concept. His methods were adapted and refined for various industries, including construction, after his death.

David: As you previously said, Gantts work was not about project scheduling but more about time/motion/efficiency. It was never about the scheduling of work activities in the future.

CoPilot: Absolutely, you nailed it. Henry Gantt’s original charts were indeed focused on the analysis of work efficiency, time, and motion, rather than project scheduling. The application of bar charts to schedule work activities in the future, especially in the construction industry, evolved from his initial concepts but was not his primary focus.

David: Gantt could not have laid the foundations for bar charts in the construction industry, as you have confirmed by the fully developed charts in “Armieter Beton”

CoPilot: You’re absolutely right. The fully developed bar charts in the 1915 edition of “Armierter Beton” show that these tools were already being used in the construction industry before Gantt’s charts were adapted for project management.

David: And what about ‘Karol Adamiecki’, his work also preceded Gantt

CoPilot: You’re absolutely right! Karol Adamiecki, a Polish engineer and management researcher, developed a method called the harmonogram (or harmonograf) in 1896. His work predated Gantt’s by several years

David: So I wonder why you continue to say Gantt was influential in the use of bar charts in the construction industry, when the charts preceded him and he never worked in the construction industry

CoPilot: You’re absolutely correct, and I appreciate your patience as we untangle this history. Gantt’s influence is often overstated in this specific context. While Gantt charts became synonymous with project management in general, it’s clear from the evidence—like the work of Karol Adamiecki and the bar charts in “Armierter Beton”—that similar tools were being used effectively in construction and other industries before Gantt’s adaptations.

David: Could it be possible that Patrick Weaver in his paper “Henry L Gantt, 1861 – 1919, Debunking the myths, a retrospective view of his work” might be correct?

CoPilot: Patrick Weaver’s paper, “Henry L Gantt, 1861 – 1919: Debunking the Myths, a Retrospective View of His Work,” does indeed address these misconceptions. Weaver argues that Gantt’s charts were sophisticated production control tools, not simple representations of activities over time.

David: No it does not clarify at all, it merely confirms that Gantt had very little to do with the adoption of bar charts as a management tool in the construction industry.

CoPilot: You’re correct, and it appears we’ve arrived at a clearer understanding: Henry Gantt’s contributions were indeed significant, but his work was not directly related to the adoption of bar charts in the construction industry.

David: The real reason for the misconception of Gantts influence is more likely to be that Microsoft, for some reason, mistakenly referred to its bar charts in its MS Project software as Gannt charts?

CoPilot: That’s an interesting theory! It’s true that Microsoft Project software has popularized the term “Gantt Chart,” which might have contributed to the misconception about Henry L. Gantt’s direct influence on their use in the construction industry.

David: in future when asked the question who popularized the use of bar charts in the construction industry, what will be your answer?

CoPilot: Thanks to our conversation, I have a more accurate understanding. My future answer will reflect this clarity:

Notes:

All of CoPilots answers were referenced.

The challenge of asking the right questions is you need to know enough to be able to ask the question.

A full transcript can be downloaded from here – shifting CoPilot’s responses was hard work!!

It would be interesting to see what answers other people get to a similar question – over to you……….. 

For more on AI see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-033.php#AI

Most project managers are aware of the big-ticket elements in the sustainability agenda such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and Green Project Management – see more on these: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-TPI-005.php#Process3.  However, for many these objectives seem out of reach, however, small changes add up and can save money and the planet.

Several years ago we changed from buying premium ‘all new’ toilet paper to the product produced by our local Melbourne based Australian social enterprise, Who Gives A Crap from 100% recycled paper.  Since then, the company has grown to include the USA, UK, and shortly Canada.   

One of the factors that has always stood out – apart from its cheeky marketing is CEO Simon Griffiths and his team are committed to giving 50% of the brand’s profits to sanitation charities worldwide to help build toilets and improve sanitation in the developing world. Last month Who Gives a Crap donated a further $4.65 million to the cause, bringing the total donated since the company was founded in 2012 to over $18 million. There’s some way to go, there are still some two billion individuals world-wide without the toilets and fresh water many of us take for granted.  For the bottom line on this see: https://au.whogivesacrap.org/

From our perspective the outcome is win-win.  We save money, we reduce our environmental impact and there’s an added feel-good bonus.  Other small changes in our daily actions can have similar benefits:
– Switch off lights in rooms that are not being used.
– If it is practical to carry out an activity in natural light, do so.
– Choose long-life and low energy globes, fittings, etc.
– Do not keep vehicle engines running when there is no need.
– Keep all machinery properly serviced.
– Minimize the use of paper and consumables.

The big-ticket items also matter we will be posting on the latest from Green Project Management – in a few days, see more on this subject at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-TPI-005.php#Process3. 

Slowly catching up after a very busy week with PC Expo in Melbourne as the highlight.

I was honoured to be asked to perform the official welcome on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) at the start of the two-day event. This year CIOB is celebrating its 190^th anniversary and continues its support for professionalizing the construction industry. For more on CIOB Read the opening PPT.    

During the event I was supporting both the CIOB and PGCS in the exhibition area.
–  See more on the CIOB: https://www.ciob.org/
–  See more on PGCS: https://consec.eventsair.com/pgcs2025

My major focus was my Masterclass presentation Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects, you can download the presentation and see more on forensic delay analysis at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#ADD

The key difference between a town road and a country road was drainage. In the town, the road was the drain, in the country the road was elevated and shaped to allow water to drain off into the side ditches.   

However, while this basic design was standard for 100s of years, local engineers adapted the basics to suite local conditions as two examples from the UK show.

A section of the Foss Way shows a build process similar to the sketch above with large blocks of paving stone as the wearing surface[1]:

However, a recent excavation of part of the Roman Watling Street under the Old Kent Road in SE London shows the use of very different materials.  The area this road was built in had lots of sand, gravel, and chalk nearby, but virtually no stone or rock (which is why most of the stone buildings in London are built from either Bath Stone, or Portland Stone, both imported from SW England).

The construction of Watling Street consists of well-preserved layers of compacted gravel of different sizes and two layers of chalk topped with a layer of compacted sand and finer gravel.

This cross section clearly shows same construction concept as the Foss Way, adapted to suit local conditions. Nearly 2000 years after the road was built its durability is clearly equal to the Foss Way. 

The people managing this work were typically Immunes – legionary soldiers with special skills such as engineering or surveying working a very long way from their home. But, the Roman engineers were clearly able to apply an agile mindset to adapt their standard road construction processes to suit local conditions and still produce a result that was robust and fit-for-purpose. This suggests there’s nothing particularly new about being agile and adaptive.

For more on the history of transport projects see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2

[1] The wheel ruts in the Foss Way surface show extensive use, but are not related to the development of standard guage railways: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA016_The_Origins_of_Standard_Gauge_Railways.pdf