Why many public buildings in Ghana look finished but are not truly ready for use

Across Ghana, it is increasingly common to see public buildings that appear complete on the surface but struggle once people begin to use them. Schools open months later than expected, hospitals face operational challenges, hostels experience repeated system failures, and housing projects remain partially occupied long after construction ends.
These situations are often treated as unavoidable setbacks. In reality, however, they reveal deeper weaknesses in how public projects are planned, coordinated, and handed over for use.
At first glance, many of these facilities look impressive. Walls are neatly painted, floors are tiled, windows are fitted, and signage is mounted.
To the ordinary observer, the project seems finished. Yet behind this appearance, critical systems may still be unstable, untested, or poorly coordinated. A building can look complete while remaining functionally unready for real-life use.
Beyond Appearance: Understanding Functional Readiness
The challenge facing many public projects is not only about construction speed or workmanship. It lies in the difference between physical completion and functional readiness. Physical completion focuses on what can be seen: the structure, the finishes, and the external outlook.
Functional readiness, on the other hand, focuses on whether all systems within the building can work together safely, efficiently, and sustainably.
In many cases, project teams concentrate heavily on visible progress. Once walls are raised and roofs are fixed, attention shifts toward finishing works. While these are important, they do not guarantee that a facility is ready for operation.
Electrical systems, water supply, drainage, ventilation, fire safety, communication networks, and maintenance plans must all be tested and aligned before a building can truly serve its purpose.
When functional readiness is not treated as a priority, problems emerge only after handover. At that stage, institutions are expected to begin operations, even though the infrastructure is not fully prepared. Fixing faults under such conditions becomes more costly, disruptive, and time-consuming.
Lessons from Agenda 111 Hospitals
A clear illustration of this challenge can be seen in some of the Agenda 111 hospital projects. These facilities were designed to expand access to healthcare and improve service delivery across the country.
In principle, they represent a major investment in public welfare. In practice, however, several completed hospitals have taken long periods to become fully operational.
Hospitals are complex environments that depend on tightly integrated systems. Reliable power supply is essential for life-saving equipment. Medical gas systems must meet strict safety standards. Water quality must be carefully controlled.
Ventilation and air filtration systems are critical for infection prevention. Fire safety and emergency controls must function flawlessly.
When these systems are developed independently and only tested at the end, serious challenges arise. A failure in one system can affect many others. For example, unstable power supply can damage medical equipment, while poor ventilation can compromise patient safety.
Without thorough, coordinated testing before handover, hospitals require additional time and resources before they can safely serve patients.
This situation does not mean that engineers or contractors have failed. Rather, it reflects a project structure that does not prioritise early system integration and verification.
As a result, facilities that should immediately benefit communities remain underutilised.
Housing Projects and the Saglemi Experience
Another widely discussed example is the Saglemi Housing project. This case highlights the difference between constructing buildings and delivering habitable homes.
From a distance, housing estates may appear complete: blocks are standing, roofs are fixed, and roads are visible. Yet many units remain unoccupied for long periods.
Housing projects require more than strong foundations and painted walls. Residents need reliable water supply, effective drainage, stable electricity, accessible roads, waste management systems, and security arrangements. In addition, maintenance plans must be established to ensure long-term sustainability.
When these elements are not fully coordinated and verified early, problems emerge after construction. Flooding, power outages, water shortages, and safety concerns discourage residents from moving in. Consequently, buildings remain empty despite significant public investment.
The Saglemi experience demonstrates that structural completion alone does not guarantee social value. Without functional readiness, housing projects fail to meet the needs they were created to address.
The Problem with Percentage-Based Progress
One of the most common practices in public project reporting is the use of progress percentages. Statements such as “the project is 80 percent complete” or “90 percent done” are frequently used to reassure stakeholders and the public. While these figures may reflect construction milestones, they rarely capture operational reality.
A project can be 90 percent complete in physical terms and still be far from usable. For instance, major systems may be installed but not tested.
Backup power may exist but not synchronised. Safety controls may be present but not certified. Without clear information on readiness, decision-makers may believe a project is close to commissioning when it is not.
What matters more than percentage completion is a simple question: Which systems are ready to operate safely today? Until this question is answered with evidence, claims of near-completion remain misleading.
Late Coordination and Its Consequences
Another major contributor to unready buildings is late coordination among project participants. Electrical, mechanical, plumbing, structural, and safety systems are often designed and implemented by different teams. In many projects, these teams work in parallel with limited early integration.
Conflicts between systems are therefore discovered late in the project lifecycle. Pipes may clash with electrical conduits. Ventilation ducts may interfere with structural elements.
Fire safety routes may be compromised by later modifications. When such problems appear close to completion, teams are forced into rushed solutions.
These hurried fixes affect cost, quality, and long-term reliability. They also increase the likelihood of recurring faults after handover. Importantly, most of these challenges are not caused by negligence.
They are usually the result of planning approaches that treat coordination as an end-stage activity rather than a continuous process.
The Role of Strong Project Controls
Stronger project controls offer a practical way forward. Project controls go beyond tracking budgets and schedules. They focus on managing risk, improving decision quality, and ensuring readiness.
Under a strong project control framework, high-risk systems are identified early. Key assumptions are tested at preliminary stages.
Critical interfaces between systems are reviewed regularly. Progress is measured by what has been verified, not merely what has been installed.
For example, instead of reporting that “electrical works are complete,” project teams can confirm that power systems have been tested under operational conditions. Instead of stating that “water systems are installed,” they can demonstrate that quality and pressure standards have been met consistently.
Such an approach shifts attention from appearance to performance.
Planning for Readiness in Public Facilities
For Ghana, the emphasis on readiness is especially important for public facilities such as hospitals, schools, hostels, and housing estates.
These buildings are expected to function immediately after handover. Delays and failures directly affect education, healthcare, and social welfare.
Planning around testing and readiness milestones — rather than only construction activities — can significantly improve outcomes.
This includes scheduling system integration tests, staff training sessions, maintenance planning, and emergency simulations before official commissioning.
When readiness is built into project timelines, last-minute surprises are reduced. Operators are better prepared. Users experience fewer disruptions. Public confidence in infrastructure delivery is strengthened.
The Economic Case for Early Clarity
Some may argue that investing in early testing and coordination increases project costs. In reality, the opposite is often true.
Fixing problems late is far more expensive than preventing them early. Rework, equipment replacement, operational delays, and legal disputes impose heavy financial burdens.
Early clarity saves money by reducing uncertainty. When systems are planned, tested, and confirmed in advance, risks are lowered.
Facilities become easier and cheaper to operate. Maintenance becomes more predictable. Public funds achieve greater value.
In a resource-constrained environment, such efficiency is not a luxury. It is a necessity.
Towards Buildings That Truly Serve
Public infrastructure represents more than concrete and steel. It embodies national priorities, social responsibility, and public trust. When buildings look complete but fail to function, that trust is weakened.
Ghana’s development agenda requires facilities that work from day one. This demands a shift in mindset: from celebrating physical completion to ensuring functional readiness.
It requires stronger coordination, better project controls, and more informed decision-making.
Public projects should not only look impressive. They should be safe, reliable, and ready to serve their purpose immediately. By focusing on readiness, early integration, and long-term performance, Ghana can improve value for money and deliver infrastructure that genuinely supports national progress.
Only then will public buildings move beyond appearance and truly meet the needs of the people who depend on them.

By Stephen Okyere Boansi