When people think about major infrastructure projects, there is often an assumption that success depends on having the right information.

As engineers, planners and project managers, we spend much of our careers gathering information, analysing options, assessing risks and developing programmes. It is natural to assume that better decisions come from better information. The longer I work in infrastructure, however, the less convinced I become that information is the real challenge.

More often than not, the challenge is understanding.

One project that reinforced this lesson for me was the M20 Lorry Area programme, which emerged following the significant disruption caused by Operation Stack in Kent during 2015. At the time, disruption to cross-Channel freight movements and operational issues affecting routes through Dover and the Channel Tunnel resulted in thousands of HGVs queuing on sections of the M20, causing widespread disruption across Kent. Between January and August 2015 alone, Operation Stack was implemented for 32 days. What had initially appeared to be a transport issue had rapidly become a matter of national importance.

By the time I joined the programme, there was considerable pressure to find a solution. The issue was politically sensitive, economically important and highly visible. Communities wanted relief from disruption. Freight operators wanted reliability and certainty. Government wanted a deliverable solution. Nobody doubted the need for action. The difficulty was determining what that action should look like.

I remember sitting in a workshop in Kent with planners, engineers, environmental specialists, procurement teams and government stakeholders. On the surface, we were discussing programme durations, procurement activities, planning processes and delivery milestones. Yet the real conversation was much broader than that.

We were not simply discussing how long the project would take. We were attempting to reconcile the urgency understandably being expressed by political leaders with the practical realities of planning, procurement, environmental assessment and construction delivery. Everyone wanted a solution quickly. The challenge was understanding what was realistically achievable.

A solution that appeared attractive from a freight perspective could raise legitimate concerns for local communities. A solution that could be delivered quickly might have environmental consequences. A technically deliverable solution could prove difficult to gain public support for. The programme itself was not especially difficult to draw. Understanding the implications of the programme was considerably harder.

At the time, I often found myself reflecting on the fact that everyone involved was looking at the same challenge, yet seeing something different. Environmental specialists saw the impact on the landscape; Freight operators saw network resilience; Communities saw disruption; Government saw a national infrastructure challenge; Planners saw consenting risks and programme implications; None of those perspectives were wrong.

The challenge was understanding how they fitted together.

The proposed M20 Lorry Area would have provided a significant piece of infrastructure intended to address a very real problem. Yet it was also a contentious proposal. Productive agricultural land would be transformed into infrastructure. Communities would be affected. Environmental concerns would have to be addressed.

Looking back, it brought to mind the lyric from Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi :  "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Whether people agreed or disagreed with the proposal, the debate itself highlighted something important. Infrastructure decisions are rarely engineering decisions alone. They are decisions about trade-offs. And understanding those trade-offs is often more important than having more information.

Whether working on housing developments in South Africa, water infrastructure projects in Zimbabwe, rail schemes in London or major regeneration programmes, I have repeatedly observed that successful outcomes rarely come from having the greatest quantity of information.

They come from developing the clearest understanding of the problem being solved.

Today, that observation feels more relevant than ever. The infrastructure sector has access to more information than at any point in its history. BIM models, GIS platforms, digital twins, asset management systems, real-time monitoring and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence tools are generating insights at a scale that would have been unimaginable when I started my career.

Yet despite this abundance of information, decision-making is not always becoming easier. In some cases, it is becoming harder. The volume of information continues to grow. Understanding does not always grow at the same rate.

The encouraging news is that technology can help. Artificial intelligence, digital twins and advanced analytics all have the potential to help us explore options, understand consequences and make sense of increasingly complex infrastructure systems.

But, they do not remove the need for judgement. Technology can help us understand possibilities. People still need to decide which path to take.

I believe the same lesson applies to sustainability. Organisations are measuring more than ever before. Carbon, biodiversity, energy consumption, waste and social value are all increasingly quantified and reported. That information is valuable. But information alone does not improve outcomes.

Value is created when information improves understanding and understanding informs better decisions. Without that link, sustainability risks becoming an exercise in measurement rather than an exercise in improvement.

The M20 Lorry Area programme itself provides an interesting illustration of this point. The original proposal was eventually withdrawn following legal challenge and wider stakeholder considerations. In the years that followed, Government and Highways England adopted a different approach to managing cross-Channel freight disruption through what became known as Operation Brock. The solution evolved as understanding evolved.

If they do struggle, it is often because the systems surrounding them are complex, stakeholders have different priorities, and the consequences of decisions are difficult to fully understand.

As infrastructure becomes increasingly connected, digital and interdependent, the ability to convert information into understanding may become one of the most valuable skills in our profession.

Because the construction industry does not have a data problem.

It has an understanding problem.