Recent disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, triggered by the Iran-Israel-U.S. conflict, has increased transport costs, pushed some importers onto more expensive alternative routes, and made operating conditions less predictable for Gulf businesses.
In the UAE, May PMI data showed input delivery delays were the worst since April 2020, alongside continued pressure from higher transport and material costs. Reuters also reported that one alternative Qatar-bound route tested by importers cost about $10,000 per truckload, compared with roughly $2,500 before the disruption.
For project teams, that matters because logistics pressure does not stay within procurement. It affects package strategy, sequencing, float, storage assumptions and the reliability of programme logic. A plan built around stable supply conditions can become fragile more quickly than expected when the movement of materials becomes less predictable.
The risk is particularly important for long-lead and sequence-critical packages such as façade systems, MEP equipment, lifts, switchgear, generators, steel, specialist finishes and imported plant. If one of these packages is delayed, the effect may not remain isolated. It can restrict access, delay testing and commissioning, disrupt subcontractor mobilisation, or force a re-sequence that reduces productivity across several work fronts.
Phasing becomes a risk-control tool
In these conditions, phasing needs to do more than support an efficient sequence of works. It can also reduce a project’s exposure to disruption.
A tightly timed programme may look efficient on paper, but it is more vulnerable if it depends on narrow delivery windows, limited storage capacity or a small number of imported items arriving exactly when expected. Smarter phasing may mean bringing forward packages with greater route exposure, protecting more float around logistics-sensitive work fronts, or resequencing activity so progress is less dependent on one critical delivery assumption holding true.
In practical terms, project teams should test the programme against logistics-sensitive assumptions. Which packages depend on exposed routes? Which items have limited approved alternatives? Which activities have no meaningful float? Which materials require storage that the site cannot easily provide? Those questions should influence procurement release dates, design-freeze priorities, approval timelines and the sequencing of critical work fronts.
That is the shift. When logistics become less predictable, phasing stops being only a scheduling tool. It becomes a practical means of risk control.
Better planning depends on earlier visibility
This only works if logistics visibility is treated as a live project-management input rather than a downstream update. Widely referenced OECD guidance on major infrastructure delivery stresses that projects perform better when responsibilities are clear, accountability is defined and decisions are made early enough to preserve options. The OECD is an international standards and policy body, and its infrastructure guidance identifies timely decision-making and clear governance as central to effective delivery.
In practice, that means the value of phasing lies not only in the programme itself, but in the team’s ability to respond before delay becomes visible on site. If route risk increases, transport costs rise further or a critical package becomes harder to secure, the advantage comes from adjusting early rather than absorbing the impact later.
A more useful question for project teams
The question is no longer just how materials will reach site. It is also how work should be phased to reduce the project’s exposure if logistics conditions shift.
Projects cannot remove volatility from the market. But they can reduce how directly that volatility flows into the programme. In the current Gulf context, stronger phasing is not simply a matter of efficiency. It is becoming a measure of project resilience.
Sources:
S&P Global UAE PMI
Reuters
OECD
FURTHER INFORMATION:
