What water can learn from other sectors
At a glance
Across sectors, leaders are facing increasing pressure to make decisions with limited time, funding and certainty. At Ozwater’26, we brought together a cross-sector panel from housing, transport, energy and government to examine how different sectors respond to these pressures. We then put those perspectives to the test through a scenario-based activity, using the Loveable Framework. The discussions explored how decisions shift when viewed through the lens of community outcomes and what this means for the water sector.One set of challenges, different decisions
Ageing assets, constrained funding and rising expectations are changing how infrastructure decisions are made. As these pressures intensify, attention can shift from securing the best long-term outcome to determining what can be delivered now.
The harder question is how to act when every available option carries consequences. Waiting for certainty can delay progress, yet moving too quickly can overlook impacts that will be felt by communities for years.
Organisations facing similar challenges do not necessarily make the same decisions. Responses vary depending on system interdependencies, community expectations and risk appetite. Some seek to extend asset life and increase efficiency, while others explore new delivery models or alternative approaches to service provision.
Moving forward increasingly requires informed decisions that can support adaptation as needs, risks and circumstances change.
Applying a different lens through the Loveable Framework
The Loveable Framework changes the starting point for decision-making. Instead of focusing on technical delivery, it asks what communities value and how decisions influence their experience over time. This brings attention to the broader impact of decisions, including how they affect wellbeing, connection and long-term trust.
In practice, this makes the consequences of decisions more visible. Options that appear efficient from a technical or financial perspective can create unintended impacts that become clearer when viewed through a community lens.
A decision that prioritises cost or speed may appear effective in the short term yet reduce long-term wellbeing or connection. Considering these broader impacts can change which outcome is prioritised.
Insights from the workshop
When participants applied these perspectives to the same scenario, they arrived at different solutions. However, common themes emerged through applying the Loveable Framework.
As participants weighed failing infrastructure, constrained funding and community impact to make investment choices, the activity showed how strongly decisions are guided by perspective, context and individual tolerance for risk.
What gets lost when pressure increases
Health and wellbeing came under pressure almost every time. Social and cultural life was also vulnerable to the impacts of decision-making.”
Both can be traded away when difficult choices are made, despite their importance to how communities experience infrastructure decisions.
This highlighted a gap between what is measured and prioritised and what matters most to communities.”
Technical performance, cost and delivery time may show whether an asset has met its objectives, but they do not necessarily reveal what has been lost along the way.
Fair does not always mean equal
The exercise also raised a more difficult question: What does fair look like in practice? Does it mean providing the same level of service everywhere, or responding differently to the needs and circumstances of individual communities?
There is no universal answer.
The definition of fairness changes the decision. It influences which outcomes are prioritised, which trade-offs are considered acceptable and how the consequences are distributed across communities.”
How these decisions are made can also affect community trust. Infrastructure is judged not only on performance but on how decisions are made and outcomes are experienced over time.
When communities feel removed from decision-making, trust weakens. The panel highlighted that trust links directly to engagement, transparency and pace. Taking too long can reduce confidence, while moving ahead without community input can overlook what people value.
Different sectors, different approaches
Similar pressures are being addressed in different ways. Some industries prioritise speed and adaptability, while others favour caution and long-term certainty.
These differences reflect how sectors interpret risk, accountability and time.
This creates an opportunity to consider how those trade-offs are made and where alternative approaches could unlock better outcomes.
Taking the next steps
For water leaders, how decisions are framed is as important as the decision itself. The definition of fairness may need to evolve depending on context. The ability to move forward without complete certainty is becoming increasingly important.
In practice, this means creating space for broader perspectives earlier in the decision process, testing assumptions through real-world scenarios and considering impacts beyond technical performance.
Looking beyond the water sector can help leaders make decisions that better reflect the communities they serve.
This article draws on a cross-sector panel discussion at Ozwater’26, organised by Elaine Pang and facilitated by James Skene, with panellists: Jackson Hills, Chief Executive Officer of National Shelter, Tracy Mackey, Chief Executive Officer of the Infrastructure Association of Queensland, Jamie Alonso, Chief Operating Officer of EPEC Group and Christine Ip, Director of Water and Transport at QTC.