Collaboration Over Control: Why Clinging to Power is Destroying Construction

Introduction

For decades, construction has run on contracts designed to give one party, usually the owner or the engineer, near total control. They hold the authority to approve payments, certify variations, and grant time extensions. On paper, it looks like power. In reality, it is a poisoned chalice.

The industry’s dirty secret is that control does not deliver projects. Collaboration does. Yet many powerful parties refuse to see it, hiding behind paperwork while projects stall, costs spiral, and trust evaporates.

Here is the controversial truth. You do not need a formal collaborative contract model to work collaboratively. And the parties clinging hardest to control are the ones holding the industry back. 

The Myth of Power

Traditionalists argue that authority equals security. But anyone who has delivered a major project knows this is an illusion. Excessive control breeds claims, disputes, and delays. Instead of protecting the project, it suffocates it.

True strength is not found in dominance but in the ability to build trust, share risk, and solve problems collectively. Those who refuse collaboration are not protecting their interests. They are sabotaging them. 

Why Collaboration Beats Control Every Time

Control Creates Conflict, Collaboration Creates Progress

The more one party dominates, the more others push back. Claims multiply, lawyers get rich, and projects grind to a halt. Collaboration, even under a standard contract, replaces conflict with joint accountability and faster decision-making. 

Control Kills Innovation

When teams fear rejection, blame, or penalties, they stop suggesting new ideas. Collaboration opens the floor, giving space for creativity and problem-solving. If you want innovation, you need trust, not control. 

Control Buys Enemies, Collaboration Builds Reputation

Everyone remembers the owner or engineer who was fair, transparent, and collaborative. They also remember the ones who hid behind the contract to squeeze their partners. Power fades once a project ends. Reputation endures. 

Control Feels Safe but Costs More

The most expensive projects are often the ones dominated by authority. Every dispute drags on, every delay worsens, every dollar is fought over. Collaboration is cheaper, faster, and more predictable. 

You Do Not Need a Collaborative Contract

The excuse is often heard: “We would collaborate if the contract were different.” That is a cop-out. Collaboration does not require a special agreement.

In Singapore, we have heard over the last couple of years that collaborative contracting is the way of the future, whether in the form of the PSSCOC Optional Module or, more recently, NEC4. Australia has gone further, experimenting with alliancing models for major infrastructure, while in Hong Kong NEC has been adopted widely on government projects. Yet even in those markets, the results depend less on the contract itself and more on the mindset of the parties using it.

Open communication, willingness to give and take, and shared responsibility can be built into any standard form. A new contract model may help, but it is never essential. If people want to collaborate, they will. If they do not, no contract will save them.

The Provocative Reality

Parties that cling to control are exposing themselves. They are showing that they value power over outcomes, paperwork over performance, and short-term dominance over long-term success.

The future of construction will not be won by those who hoard authority. It will be built by those who choose trust, communication, and collaboration, regardless of what the contract says. 

Conclusion

The uncomfortable truth is this. The party with all the power has the most to gain by giving some of it up. Collaboration is not a weakness. It is smarter, stronger, and more profitable.

The real risk is not collaboration. The real risk is pretending that control works when all the evidence shows it does not.