When project risks are deeply interdependent, pretending that every problem belongs neatly to one party can create more conflict than control.
The Week 8 material presents alliance contracting as an open-book, relationship-oriented model using target costs, agreed corporate allowances and profit mechanisms, with outcomes shared when actual cost moves above or below the target. It also describes a culture intended to encourage solutions rather than blame.
The material is historical and should not be treated as current Australian alliance policy without verification. [FACT CHECK REQUIRED]
The strategic principle, however, remains important: some project risks are too interconnected for efficient transfer through conventional adversarial allocation.
The Strategic Context
Traditional contracting works best when responsibilities can be defined clearly enough for each party to price and control its risks.
Complex projects can violate that assumption.
Ground conditions, design interfaces, emerging technology, operational constraints and third-party approvals may interact in ways that no supplier can control independently.
If the buyer pushes all those risks to one contractor, the result may be:
- large contingency;
- restrictive qualifications;
- weak competition;
- disputes over whether the event was truly transferred.
A shared-risk model attempts to align the parties around total project performance.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first mistake is assuming collaboration means risk disappears.
The second is treating alliance culture as a substitute for commercial structure.
The third is believing shared risk automatically produces shared incentives.
The fourth is using collaborative language while preserving decision rights and payment mechanisms that reward local optimisation.
The fifth is assuming alliance models fit projects where scope and interfaces are already simple and competitively transferable.
Reframing the Issue
Alliance contracting should be understood as a behavioural and economic architecture.
It combines relationship governance with commercial mechanisms intended to make participants care about the whole outcome rather than only their contractual component.
This can include:
- transparent cost information;
- target cost;
- pain/gain sharing;
- joint problem solving;
- integrated governance.
The exact structure varies and requires contemporary verification.
Strategic Analysis
Consider a hypothetical major brownfield infrastructure upgrade.
Work must occur while the existing facility remains operational.
Legacy drawings are incomplete.
Shutdown windows are constrained.
Several engineering disciplines are highly interdependent.
A conventional fixed-price contractor may price large contingency or reserve broad variation rights.
An alliance-style structure may instead allow the parties to develop the solution together and share the economic consequence of total project performance.
The potential value comes from reducing the incentive to defend individual contract boundaries when the project needs a system response.
But that value depends on governance quality.
Open-book cost without disciplined challenge can merely transfer financial risk to the buyer.
Executive Trade-offs
Alliance models can improve collaboration around uncertainty.
They can also reduce traditional price competition and require high transparency.
The buyer must be comfortable assessing actual cost, target-setting and supplier performance rather than relying on a single tendered lump sum.
There is also a cultural trade-off.
A relationship model can encourage problem solving, but it may fail if executives continue to reward defensive behaviour internally.
The contract cannot create collaboration on its own.
Decision Framework
Consider alliance-style delivery when:
Interdependence
Major risks cross organisational boundaries.
Uncertainty
Important scope or technical issues cannot be resolved efficiently before commitment.
Capability
The buyer and suppliers can operate transparently.
Incentives
A credible shared-performance mechanism can be designed.
Governance
Joint decisions can be made without losing accountability.
Market
Conventional risk transfer would materially distort price or competition.
These conditions should be tested deliberately.
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action: identify risks that cannot be efficiently allocated to one party.
Medium-term capability building: strengthen open-book cost governance, target-cost capability and collaborative decision forums.
Long-term strategic positioning: use alliance models selectively for projects where interdependence genuinely dominates.
The model should not become a cultural preference applied to every complex project.
Governance Implication
Alliance governance should preserve independent executive oversight even where day-to-day delivery is collaborative. Shared incentives do not remove the need for assurance, audit, safety governance or strategic challenge. The relationship model should encourage joint problem solving without making the enterprise unable to test whether the arrangement is still producing value.
The buyer should also retain a clear view of whether shared-risk economics are outperforming credible alternative models.
Signals to Monitor
Watch for alliance language without transparent cost data, target costs set too early or without challenge, participants protecting organisational interests despite shared incentives and governance forums unable to make timely decisions.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which risks are genuinely interdependent?
- Why would conventional transfer produce poor economics?
- Can we verify open-book costs credibly?
- Are incentives aligned with total project outcomes?
- Do decision rights support collaboration?
- Does the organisation have the behavioural maturity to operate the model?
Closing Perspective
Shared-risk models are not softer contracting.
They are a different response to uncertainty.
Where risks cannot be separated cleanly, aligned economics and joint governance may create more value than artificial transfer followed by years of dispute.
Related article: Risk Allocation Is Not Risk Elimination: What Procurement Models Really Change
Related article: Incentive Contracts: Reward the Outcome, Not the Activity
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.