In recent years, the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan has consistently declared its commitment to improving people’s well-being, embedding this goal into strategic and program documents. In the National Development Plan and in the Government’s action programs, well-being is defined not in abstract terms, but through clear, measurable targets: growth in real household incomes, higher life expectancy, better housing affordability, development of core engineering and social infrastructure, and improved quality of public services.
These goals are backed by large-scale indicators. In housing alone, more than 31.6 million square meters are planned to be commissioned in 2025–2026. The program also includes renovation of dilapidated housing and expansion of engineering infrastructure to tens of thousands of land plots. Significant volumes are planned in energy, water supply, transport, and utilities. All of this is directly linked to citizens’ quality of life.
The key priorities are закрепed in the Government’s Action Program for achieving the goals of the National Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2029 for 2025–2026, approved by Government Resolution No. 431 dated June 12, 2025.
In several areas, the state has indeed delivered visible results. Between 2019 and 2024, around 98 million square meters of housing were commissioned in Kazakhstan. This helped accelerate housing provision and support affordable mortgage programs. Road infrastructure has been significantly upgraded, and major projects have been completed in energy and utilities.
Digitalization stands out in particular. Today, more than 90% of public services are available online, and Kazakhstan ranks 24th in the UN E-Government Development Index and is among the top ten countries globally in the Online Services Index. These achievements show that government programs are not just formal documents – they can produce measurable outcomes.
At the same time, the Supreme Audit Chamber of the Republic of Kazakhstan continues to identify systemic efficiency issues, especially in the quasi-public sector. Its reports highlight weaknesses in corporate governance, the formal nature of strategic documents, weak control over implementation of development plans, and low effectiveness of investment projects.
In the Samruk-Kazyna group, for example, the Audit Chamber points to non-functioning committees under boards of directors and management boards, a bulky multi-level governance structure, loss-making and inactive companies, and an extremely low share of completed investment projects in recent years. Significant funds have been recognized as poorly planned or inefficiently used, and the number of systemic shortcomings runs into the hundreds.
Infrastructure, social, and industrial construction plays a special role in government programs. This sector absorbs a large share of public resources and carries major management risks. Construction projects are capital-intensive, long-term, and involve complex contractor chains and multiple stakeholders. That makes them critical for achieving national goals. In practice, however, project management in construction is often introduced formally. Management remains operational and reactive, focused on reporting “after the fact” rather than managing the path toward results.
International assessments confirm this mixed picture. According to the World Bank, Kazakhstan’s Government Effectiveness indicator improved from 47.1 in 2016 to about 58.5 in 2022. This reflects better quality of public services and policy implementation. However, the OECD stresses the need to further develop management practices, including benefit and risk management, and to build a strong project culture, especially in the public sector. These recommendations directly relate to challenges in infrastructure and construction projects.
The gap between ambitious goals and actual impact lies not so much in a lack of resources as in the management model itself. The public sector is still largely driven by process and reporting logic, not by results and value. Projects are evaluated based on budget absorption and formal completion of activities. Responsibility for final outcomes is blurred across agencies. Risk registers often exist only on paper and rarely guide real decisions. As a result, projects may be formally “closed” successfully, while their contribution to citizens’ well-being remains limited or unsustainable.
It is important to note that Kazakhstan has already taken steps toward a project-based approach. Since 2018, the National Project Management System has been introduced. Project offices have been created under the Government, ministries, and regional administrations. Regulations have been approved. The levels “project – program – portfolio” have been defined. Digital monitoring and training tools are being developed. At the institutional level, project management is recognized and regulated.
Yet in practice, project management in many bodies remains a form without real managerial substance. Project offices often perform administrative and reporting functions. They rarely influence priorities, budgets, or key decisions. The project logic is replaced by operational logic. Intervention happens only when a project is already facing cost overruns, delays, or stakeholder complaints.
This makes project management reactive. But its real value lies in managing the trajectory of a project – from idea to outcome. Shifting the focus from end-of-process control to managing risks, assumptions, and implementation logic could prevent many of the problems identified by the Audit Chamber.
The paradox is that many of the crises recorded by audits are the result of an old control model: control “at the end” instead of management “along the way.” In true project management, the focus is not on reporting completed works, but on how the goal is achieved and what value is created. Quality is built during execution. Success is measured not by handing over a facility, but by its social and economic impact.
The transition from crisis management to full-scale project management does not require radical system overhaul or waiting for “ideal conditions.” It requires changes at two levels.
The first level involves systemic steps that reshape management logic.
One key step is giving project offices real authority. Not just advisory roles, but the right to influence project scope and goals, participate in budget defense, initiate project suspension in case of critical risks, and assess project managers’ performance.
The second step is mandatory benefit management. Every public project should clearly define before launch what social or economic value it creates, how this value will be measured, and who is personally accountable for achieving it after completion.
The third step is strict separation of project and operational management. Projects are temporary transformations, not routine activities. Without this distinction, projects dissolve into day-to-day operations.
The fourth step is establishing minimum professional requirements for public project managers: proven competencies, clear career paths, and personal accountability for results.
Alongside systemic changes, there are also quick management decisions that can bring visible effects within one or two budget cycles. One such quick win is shifting from control “at the end” to control “along the trajectory.” This means regular project reviews at key milestones, focusing not only on schedule and budget, but also on the viability of the project’s logic and assumptions.
Another step is early validation of project initiatives before launch. This includes proper feasibility analysis, assessment of alternatives, realistic timeframes and costs, and understanding long-term operational consequences. Improving the quality of input data – design documentation, cost estimates, baseline assumptions – can also significantly reduce future overruns and delays. Even within existing regulations, project offices can move from being a “fire brigade” to becoming analytical centers that work on root causes rather than consequences.
Given the scale and importance of construction projects for achieving national goals, this sector should become a priority area for mature project practice. Only by combining systemic reforms and quick management actions can project management move from a reactive mode to a proactive one. In this form, project offices stop being crisis headquarters and start fulfilling their real function: ensuring predictable movement of public projects from idea to result, and turning budget spending into sustainable public value.
Svetlana Nurtazina, civil engineer, PhD, certified project manager, specifically for www.economyKZ.org
