AWP World Cup: Same Game, Different Tactics… and the Same Problems We’re Not Fixing

What if Advanced Work Packaging looked less like a standard… and more like the World Cup? 

Same rules. 
Same objective. 
Same pressure to deliver. 

And yet—every team plays differently. 

Some build around structure. Others around control. Others around adaptability. 
And still…very few win consistently. 

That idea framed a global exchange led by the AWP Community for Business Advancement (AWP CBA), bringing together practitioners across regions to share real-word project experiences today. 

And before getting into regional differences, three patterns emerged across AWPCBA group members: 

• Everyone agrees AWP works. 
• Everyone is applying AWP. 
• Almost no one is achieving consistent results. 

Not because AWP is unclear. 
But because the conditions around AWP are not aligned. 

Same Game, Different Styles 

If AWP were a World Cup, each region would have its own style of play. 

North America relies on strong fundamentals—structured planning, clear sequencing, and visibility. But when execution starts, teams still depend on manual validation and disconnected systems to confirm readiness.  

Europe plays through EPC contractors. AWP is applied, but not owner-driven. The real challenge is aligning multiple construction contractors—each with different practices—into one coordinated execution approach.  

The Middle East generally operates with a more centralized, top-down approach.  Owners define expectations through contracts and governance. But even there, delivery depends on construction contractor ecosystems, making integration—not control—the deciding factor.  

Asia adapts the system to match the contract environment. With subcontracting and lump-sum models, the focus shifts to managing constraints and controlling when work is truly ready, often allowing flexibility in how execution is organized.  

South America focuses on practicality. The approach is adjusted by project phase and context, emphasizing early integration and real execution outcomes over strict adherence to a model.  

Different styles. Different tactics. 
But it is the same game. 

What is Actually Happening on Projects 

Across all regions, what is working is clear: 

• AWP improves planning.
• AWP improves structure.
• AWP improves visibility. 

But the moment execution begins, a different reality appears: 

• Teams re-check information across systems. 
• Readiness is validated late. 
• Issues are often discovered only when work reaches the field. 

In football terms: 

Teams are well-trained. 
But too many matches are still being played in reaction mode. 

And the reason is consistent everywhere: 

The sequence of construction—the path of how work should flow—is not fully aligned with how information, materials, and decisions are managed. 

The Real Alignment Gap 

The AWPCBA discussion clarified something that often stays implicit. 

AWP depends on aligning three things at the same time: 

• Sequence of construction 
• Flow of information and materials 
• Decisions that shape both 

When those three are not aligned early, teams compensate later. 

And that misalignment is usually not technical. 

Misalignment comes from how projects are structured: 

• Contracts define responsibilities separately. 
• Procurement decisions are made independently from execution needs. 
• Data is owned by different parties. 

So even when everyone applies AWP correctly within their scope, the overall system is still fragmented. 

Where the Game is Actually Being Lost 

Across all regions, the same dynamic appears: 

Teams are adapting AWP to fit their contracts instead of using AWP to shape how the project is executed. 

• Contract structures influence behavior more than methodology. 
• Incentives reward local optimization over system performance. 
• Planning improves, but execution is still negotiated in real time, 

Which leads to a simple reality: 

The method is consistent. 
The system around it is not. 

And that is why results vary. 

What Needs to Change in Practice 

This is where the conversation becomes actionable. 

For owners (who define the environment): 

Owners do not execute the work—but they define the conditions that enable or limit it. 

What matters most is how the framework is set: 

• Align contracts with execution flow 
  If engineering, procurement, and construction are separated without integration points, alignment will not happen later. 

• Link procurement decisions to construction sequence 
  Buying at the lowest price without considering when and how materials are needed directly disrupts execution. 

• Set expectations for a single, integrated way of working 
  Different parties will optimize differently unless alignment is required up front. 

• Support a connected view of data and progress 
  Fragmented information leads directly to fragmented execution. 

• Recognize early alignment as risk mitigation—not overhead 
  The biggest project risks are created long before construction starts. 

For project managers (delivering within that environment): 

Whether operating from an EPC or delivery role, the focus shifts to execution: 

• Protect the sequence of construction 
  If work is happening out of sequence, issues will compound—even if planning looks correct. 

• Surface misalignment early 
  When materials, information, or priorities don’t match the plan, escalate early—not in the field. 

• Translate plans into actual readiness 
  A task is not ready because it is scheduled—it is ready when everything required to execute that task is aligned. 

• Focus on constraints, not just plans 
  What blocks work matters more than what is planned on paper. 

• Align with contractors before execution starts 
  Clarity across construction teams is more effective than control during execution. 

Final Whistle 

In the World Cup, every team understands the game. 

But winning consistently depends on alignment: 

• Between strategy and execution 
• Between system and players 
• Between preparation and reality 

AWP is already global. 
The principles are not the issue. 

The opportunity now is clear: 

Align contracts, incentives, and execution, so the sequence of construction can actually be delivered as planned. 

Because until that happens, every region will keep playing its own version of the game. 

And results will keep depending on effort—instead of system. 

Acknowledgment:
Prepared by the AWPCBA Leadership Team 
Lead Author & Chair: Dario Rigaud 
Academic Advisor: Vassilina Demetracopoulou 
CII Senior Project Manager: Shannon Brinkley