By Mvuyo Tyobeka, CEO of SPM
In the infrastructure world, complexity is a given. Roads, bridges, power plants, and industrial facilities are not simply structures. They are ecosystems. As infrastructure projects grow in scale and interdependence, integrated systems have become essential. As a leader of multidisciplinary teams at SPM, I’ve seen firsthand how these systems can be the difference between failure and long-term success. But adopting integrated systems isn’t easy. Change unsettles people. I’ve watched teams hesitate, question new processes, and at times, resist entirely. Sometimes I wonder whether we’re pushing too hard, too fast. Those doubts aren’t theoretical – they’re real, and I carry them into every new project.
Historically, our sector has operated in a fragmented manner. The electrical contractor was unaware of the environmental consultant’s plans. The civil engineers finished their drawings before the systems engineers even arrived. The result? Waste. Delay. Cost. That reality hasn’t vanished. However, we’ve made real progress by shifting away from the idea that technology alone will solve the problem.
We often talk about integration through the lens of tools. At SPM, we utilise a system called Focal Point, our ERP backbone, which helps us manage resources, projects, safety, and compliance in one place. It has been instrumental in how we track performance and meet our ISO obligations, particularly those related to health and safety in the construction sector. However, the fundamental shift occurred when we stopped treating Focal Point as a system and began seeing it as a living part of our thought process.
In infrastructure, there’s a legal and ethical obligation to protect workers. That’s not an add-on—it’s core. ISO standards are very clear: health and safety must be embedded into design, planning, and execution. An integrated system allows us to do this without creating parallel bureaucracies. Our safety team doesn’t sit on the sidelines; they’re embedded in the workflows. The system flags gaps in real-time. But again—it’s people that make it work.
Let’s imagine a scenario. A site foreman is asked to log safety observations into the system, but hasn’t been trained. He’s hesitant to ask for help, worried about slowing down the work. If that situation isn’t addressed, the data will be flawed—and so will the decisions made from it. That’s why, in similar instances, we’ve chosen to pause, retrain, and redesign the interface with field workers in mind. Yes, it may delay a project. But it also prevents potential incidents that might otherwise go unseen. That’s what integration is really about—creating systems that adapt to the people who use them.
There’s growing interest in tools like digital twins and Building Information Modelling (BIM). While BIM is more widely adopted in some international contexts, in South Africa’s construction sector, it’s still emerging. That’s not a shortcoming—it simply reflects where we are. We remain optimistic about its potential to improve coordination and planning, provided the right support structures are in place. More importantly, these tools prompt better conversations: Who owns the model? Who understands it? Who might need support but hasn’t asked? These aren’t technical questions—they reflect the real-world dynamics of how teams work together.
The construction industry is undergoing a shift in mindset. Not fast enough, in my view. We’re still too focused on delivery and not enough on systems thinking. But I see signs of progress. When our teams come together—operations, procurement, engineering, SHEQ, logistics—and sit around one table looking at the same data, something changes. It’s about accountability. Suddenly, a missed delivery is not logistics’ problem—it’s a shared delay.
Integration has practical benefits: fewer reworks, better risk anticipation, stronger compliance. However, it also has emotional benefits: fewer surprises, less firefighting, and more alignment. For companies like ours, which don’t sell products but rather outcomes, this alignment is everything.
There are tensions, of course. Integrated systems expose inefficiencies and errors. They can make people feel as though they are being watched or judged. I’ve seen seasoned professionals push back—quietly or forcefully—against what they see as micromanagement via dashboards. That’s when leadership has to step in and reframe the narrative. The goal isn’t surveillance. It’s support. And if the system doesn’t feel supportive, we need to listen and fix that.
Africa’s infrastructure future demands that we leap over old models, not crawl behind them. We cannot afford disconnected systems. We cannot afford to have safety, quality, or sustainability relegated to departmental silos. But ambition without implementation is dangerous. The tools exist. The challenge lies in mindset and team dynamics. Do people trust the system? Do they understand how their work connects to others’? Do they feel safe speaking up when something doesn’t fit?
At SPM, we’ve made integration a key part of our on-site presence. It’s in the toolbox talks. It’s in the boardroom reports. It’s in how we audit. But we’re not done. We’re still learning. Still adapting. Still messing up and improving. And I’m proud of that.
The question I ask myself—and my team—is simple: Are we building things that last? Or are we just finishing projects? Integrated systems are not about ticking boxes. They’re about building infrastructure that works—for the client, for the worker, and for the communities who will live with what we create.
That’s not a trend. That’s responsibility. And it starts with how we work together.