Don’t Hate the Player. Hate the Game. And if the Game is Broken—Fix the Game.

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” It’s a familiar phrase in projects—often used when results disappoint, tensions rise, and teams start pointing fingers. But in reality, most of the behaviors we see on capital projects are not personal failures. They are logical responses to the rules of the game we design, and as an extension, the contracts we implement.  

That idea was front and center in a recent CII Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) Community for Business Advancement (CBA) discussion, where multiple perspectives came together around a simple but powerful premise:

If the outcomes are wrong, it’s not enough to coach the players. We must fix the game. 

Contracts Don’t Just Allocate Risk—They Shape Behavior 

Every project operates inside a system that quietly dictates how people act: 

• Contracts 
• Incentives and payment mechanisms 
• Approval thresholds and delegation of authority 
• Risk ownership and change processes 

Together, these elements define what is rewarded, what is delayed, and what is avoided. 

When the system rewards individual position over project success, people protect their scope. 
When it slows down decisions, teams wait. 
When it transfers risk without control, defensive behaviors emerge. 

This is not a character flaw—it is a predictable outcome of system design. 

As discussed across multiple perspectives in the CBA, contracts are not neutral instruments. They are behavioral models. They influence trust, decision speed, collaboration, and ultimately, predictability. 
 

Why Strong AWP Alone is Sometimes Not Enough 

AWP has demonstrated clear value in improving safety, productivity, and execution certainty. Many projects today are well planned, packaged, and sequenced. 

And yet, some still struggle. Why? 

Because AWP optimizes how we build, but it does not, by itself, resolve how we work together. 

AWP brings execution discipline: 

• Structured work packages 
• Integrated planning
• Clear handoffs
• Predictable workflows 

But contracts define: 

• Who decides—and when 
• How change is handled 
• How risk is treated in practice 
• Whether teams solve problems together or defend positions 

When the execution system and the commercial system are misaligned, even the best planning can be undermined by friction, delay, and mistrust. 
 

From Risk Transfer to Risk Alignment 

A recurring theme in the CBA discussion was the limitation of traditional risk‑transfer models—especially on complex projects. 

On paper, risk may appear transferred. In reality, it often returns later as: 

• Claims and counterclaims 
• Schedule erosion 
• Quality compromises 
• Adversarial relationships 

Collaborative contracting models—often referred to as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), I2PD, or broader advanced project delivery approaches—start from a different assumption:
 

Complex projects require aligned systems, not transferred risk. 

Rather than asking, “Who can we push this risk onto?” collaborative models ask: 

• Who can best influence this risk?
• How do we make decisions early, with the right information? 
• How do incentives reinforce project outcomes—not just individual success? 

This shift fundamentally changes behavior.

IPD / I2PD: Alignment by Design, Not Assumption 

IPD and I2PD were not discussed as a single contract “type” but as a way of working enabled by the contract. 

 

Key characteristics consistently highlighted include: 

• Early involvement of key parties 
• Shared objectives and shared outcomes 
• Transparent cost and performance signals 
• Joint decision-making structures 
• Clearly defined, collaborative change processes 

In these environments, change management does not disappear—but it becomes problem-solving instead of confrontation. Decisions move faster because authority is aligned with accountability. Issues surface earlier because there is no incentive to hide them. 

In short: The game encourages the behavior the project needs. 
 

Trust is Not a Soft Concept—it’s Structural 

Trust came up repeatedly, but not as something to be hoped for or assumed. Trust is built when: 

• Rules are clear 
• Roles and decision rights are explicit 
• Processes are transparent 
• Incentives reinforce collaboration 

In collaborative delivery models, trust is not left to personalities. It is designed into the system. When teams know how decisions will be made—and that the process is fair—they act differently under pressure. 

Not because people suddenly change, but because the game changes. 
 

Community Matters: Why These Conversations Belong Here 

One of the most powerful aspects of the recent CBA session was not any single viewpoint, but the collective conversation. 

Different perspectives—from execution, commercial, and delivery strategy—converged on a shared understanding: 

• There is no universal contracting solution 
• Context matters 
• Behavior follows structure 
• Execution and contracting must be aligned 

This is exactly why the CII AWP CBA exists: to create a forum where the community can challenge assumptions, share lessons learned, and advance practices together—across organizations and roles. 

Progress doesn’t come from templates alone. It comes from shared understanding. 
 

If We Want Better Outcomes, We Must Design Better Games 

Projects rarely fail because teams lack competence or commitment. They fail because the system makes poor outcomes the path of least resistance. 

So before blaming the players, we should ask: 

• What behaviors did the contract encourage? 
• Where did risk transfer turn into risk avoidance? 
• Did the system enable early, informed decisions—or delay them? 
• Were we aligned around project success, or individual protection? 

The answer is better structure. 

• Better alignment 
• Better incentives 
• Better decision pathways 
• Better collaboration frameworks 

When we rebuild the game, the behavior changes. And when the behavior changes, the outcomes follow. 

Don’t hate the player. 
Hate the game. 
And if the game is broken—fix the game. 

Acknowledgment
Prepared by the AWP CBA Leadership Team 
Lead Author & Chair: Dario Rigaud 
Vice Chair: Danny Morrison 
Academic Advisor: Vassilina Demetracopoulou 
CII Senior Project Manager: Shannon Brinkley