  In this paper we characterise the propensity of big capital investments to
systematically deliver poor outcomes as "fragility," a notion suggested by
Nassim Taleb. A thing or system that is easily harmed by randomness is fragile.
We argue that, contrary to their appearance, big capital investments break
easily - i.e. deliver negative net present value - due to various sources of
uncertainty that impact them during their long gestation, implementation, and
operation periods. We do not refute the existence of economies of scale and
scope. Instead we argue that big capital investments have a disproportionate
(non-linear) exposure to uncertainties that deliver poor or negative returns
above and beyond their economies of scale and scope. We further argue that to
succeed, leaders of capital projects need to carefully consider where scaling
pays off and where it does not. To automatically assume that "bigger is
better," which is common in megaproject management, is a recipe for failure.
