Answer extracted from the Beyond The Plan podcast — listen to the full episode below.
Why do most project failures occur after a contract is signed?
Project failures rarely stem from budget, timeline, or scope alone—they emerge from teams' inability to act on problems they already know how to solve due to contractual boundaries, organisational silos, lack of authority, or a priority on commercial outcomes over actual project success. A signed contract, no matter how detailed, cannot by itself mobilise individuals to work effectively together within a truly collaborative framework.
The Hidden Problem: Contracts Don't Guarantee Collaboration
Most project managers assume a signed contract marks the beginning of execution. In reality, it often marks the moment when structural barriers emerge that prevent teams from acting. Brett Ackroyd, a commercial lawyer with 26 years of experience on defence and government mega-projects, explains that contractual language addresses only one dimension of project delivery—the legal one.
The real failure mechanism is more subtle. Teams possess the knowledge and capability to solve problems, but organisational boundaries, lack of cross-functional authority, and competing commercial incentives create paralysis. A developer knows how to fix a design flaw; a supply chain manager sees a cost-saving opportunity; a partner identifies a risk—yet none act, because the contract, the hierarchy, or the fear of liability stops them first.
As Ackroyd discusses in the podcast, this isn't a training or communication problem. It's a systemic one embedded in how organisations structure relationships and incentives around projects. When people prioritise protecting their contractual position over advancing the collective outcome, the project—not the contract—suffers the consequences.
Values and Behaviours: The Foundation Contracts Miss
The core insight is this: people operate because of their values and their behaviours, not because a clause compels them. A contract can enforce penalties, but it cannot create the conditions for genuine collaboration. Yet most organisations invest entirely in contract drafting and legal protection, leaving values and behaviours unaddressed.
This is where the distinction between contractual collaboration and cultural collaboration becomes critical. You can write "all parties shall work collaboratively" into every clause, and it will remain ink on paper if the surrounding systems, processes, and incentive structures don't actively support the behaviours required to make it real.
Evidence from projects using true collaborative frameworks tells a different story. Scottish Water's projects built on collaborative working principles showed significantly reduced delay times compared to projects relying solely on traditional contract management. The difference wasn't the contract—it was the intentional design of the working culture itself.
"You will know a collaborative culture exists when one party will take it on themselves to actually act to their detriment for the other party, because that allows for the achievement of the overall outcome."
Brett Ackroyd — Commercial Lawyer with 25 to 26 years of experience in defence, government security, and complex project delivery. Ackroyd has worked within major organisations managing billion-dollar infrastructure outcomes and has specialised in moving projects from contract execution to genuine success through collaborative working frameworks rather than reliance on contractual terms alone.
This single definition encapsulates what separates surviving projects from failing ones. It's not altruism—it's the recognition that individual loss in service of collective gain is the only sustainable path to project success. Yet no contract can mandate this mindset; it must be built into the culture from day one.
The Australian government and defence sector data underscores this urgently: Australia spends more of project budgets on claims than any other Western nation, a metric that reflects the cost of contractual adversarialism and the absence of genuine collaboration. These are not project failures caused by poor planning—they are failures caused by teams unable to transcend the very contracts meant to protect them.
See also
What role does ISO 44001 play in managing collaborative working?
ISO 44001 is the business relationship management standard that provides a starting point for organisations to be intentional around managing business relationships and collaborative working practices across projects and partnerships.
How should business relationship management be structured in major projects?
Collaborative working is a systemic approach to managing business relationships that must be intentional, enduring, and scalable. Organisations need to embed this approach across all levels and functions to ensure consistent, effective partnership.
What defines a collaborative working culture in complex project delivery?
A collaborative working culture exists when people will act in situations without certainty of their commercial outcome to the benefit of the overall project success—prioritising collective delivery over individual protection.
Key takeaways
- Contracts alone cannot create the conditions for effective collaboration—they address legal protection, not systemic cultural change.
- Project failures after contract signature stem from organisational boundaries, lack of authority, and competing commercial incentives that prevent teams from acting on problems they already know how to solve.
- True collaboration requires alignment of values and behaviours across all parties, supported by processes and systems that actively enable rather than inhibit joint problem-solving.
- Projects using collaborative working frameworks (like those at Scottish Water) demonstrate measurably reduced delays and lower dispute costs than traditionally contract-managed projects.