This is evident from by organisational scientist . Martinius explains: “The management of underground infrastructure projects is, in practice, mainly risk management. The subsurface is 'managed' insofar as it poses a threat to the daily transport of electricity, gas, water, and data through underground assets. Asset management and project management approach the subsurface in tightly defined silos, with different partners designated as responsible.” She continues: “With separate budgets, timelines, and individually formulated performance agreements, the work is divided into seemingly disconnected packages. After all, no one can fully oversee the entire project – let alone the entire subsurface.”
Towards broader area development
Martinius argues that we should consider the more-than-human elements of management and organisation. “Practically speaking, managers can incorporate soil surveys early in the planning phase. A physical site visit can also help grasp the complexity of a location—something often not visible in technical drawings. Finally, the strategic levels within organisations—and even public administration—should more often develop a vision and direction in which the subsurface is an integral part of wider area development.”
Strategic reduction
Martinius spent two years embedded in underground infrastructure projects in the Netherlands. What stood out was the ambivalent attitude managers took towards the subsurface: “In a very strategic way, they reduce the subsurface to the domain of their professional expertise—using the term to refer to the cables and pipelines buried underground, for which they are responsible. At other times, however, they invoke the term ‘subsurface’ to refer to a vast, untamed natural force—something far beyond their expertise.” She concludes: “It’s precisely this tension between control and elusiveness that makes clear why new ways of working and thinking are urgently needed.”