Beyond the Numbers: Nick Curum on Spotting Flawed Capital Project Proposals

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum, who has signed off on £10 million in capital projects, offers a critical perspective on evaluating project proposals, shifting the focus from numerical scrutiny to the qualitative ‘tells’ that indicate a fundamentally weak case. Curum argues that the ease of a proposal’s review is often a red flag, suggesting that the effort previously required to build a robust case has been bypassed by modern tools.

Curum highlights a common oversight in project reviews: the tendency to interrogate numbers while ignoring the underlying process. He states:

The worst papers were always the easiest to read: Most people reviewing a paper interrogate the numbers. They test the assumptions, query the forecast, chase the sensitivity. Almost nobody asks why the paper was so easy to get through.

This observation, according to Curum, points to a fundamental shift in how proposals are constructed and, consequently, how they should be evaluated. The traditional weeks-long process of building a case often led to the proposer identifying and discarding weak arguments organically. Curum contends that the absence of this organic filtering, replaced by rapid drafting tools, has introduced a new set of vulnerabilities.

The Dangers of ‘Absences’ Over Errors

Curum’s central thesis is that the real danger lies not in overt errors, but in the ‘absences’ – the elements that are missing from a proposal, which signal a lack of genuine thought or a pre-determined outcome. He explains:

You are not looking for errors. Errors were never the problem. Absences are.

To help reviewers identify these critical absences, Curum outlines sixteen ‘tells’ that can signal a flawed proposal. These indicators move beyond mere data validation to assess the integrity and rigor of the proposal’s construction.

Key Indicators of a Weak Proposal

Among the tells Curum identifies are:

• One Option Only: Suggests the decision was made beforehand, with the proposal serving merely as a retrospective justification.
• No Named Owner: Implies a lack of accountability, as no single individual bears responsibility if the project falters.
• Nothing to Falsify: A proposal should include conditions under which the recommendation would be rejected, demonstrating a commitment to objective analysis.
• No Method Shown: When the path to the conclusion is untraceable, it raises questions about the validity of the outcome.
• Risks Left Empty: A perfunctory risk section, such as “None material identified,” is not a substitute for genuine risk assessment.
• Suspiciously Round Figures: Numbers that are too neat may indicate convenience rather than accurate estimation.
• Urgent, No Date: If a request is labeled urgent without a specific deadline, it may lack genuine time sensitivity.
• No Precedent Cited: The absence of historical context or similar past approvals can be a warning sign.

Curum also points out that a lack of disagreement among consulted parties can be problematic, suggesting that dissenting views may not have been sought or considered.

Everyone consulted agreed. Nobody was asked to object.

He further elaborates on the issue of conclusions preceding reasoning:

The answer leads. The conclusion comes first, and the reasoning follows it.

By encouraging reviewers to look for these qualitative signals, Curum aims to foster a more robust and critical approach to capital project approval, moving beyond a superficial check of the numbers to a deeper understanding of the proposal’s underlying substance and integrity.