Perspectives on Project Delivery
There Is No “Collaborative” Delivery Method: Only Collaborative Teams
Contracts create the framework. People do the work.
By Kelly Wheeler, Founder of RW Solutions
September 2026
This week, our team has been spending time on an important part of project delivery: how we establish and maintain respectful, collaborative teams, regardless of the delivery method.
Those conversations have reinforced something I believe strongly:
Collaboration Is a Behavior
I think owners are sometimes given the impression that selecting a particular delivery method will guarantee a collaborative project. Choose the right contract, bring the right companies together, and the teamwork will follow. Some delivery methods absolutely create better opportunities for early coordination and alignment. Those opportunities matter. But an opportunity to collaborate is not the same as a commitment to doing it.
I have worked on incredibly collaborative hard-bid projects and incredibly collaborative projects delivered through alternative procurement. I have also seen projects using delivery methods intended to encourage collaboration fall short because the team expected the delivery method to do the work for them.
The distinction was not simply the contract. It was how people communicated, made decisions, handled disagreement, and followed through.
Collaboration is a behavior, not a contracting method.
The Contractual Structure Matters
This is not an argument against alternative delivery. I support it when it fits the project and the owner’s needs.
Different delivery methods create different working relationships. In Construction Manager/General Contractor delivery, for example, the contractor can contribute during design through constructability reviews, pricing feedback, and risk identification. That creates an opportunity to work through important issues together before construction begins.
Design-build brings design and construction under one contract with the owner. That changes the contractual relationship between the parties, but it does not eliminate the need for clear expectations or effective owner involvement.
Progressive design-build creates a process in which the owner and selected design-builder develop the design and cost model together before reaching agreement on the final commercial terms. That provides another opportunity for shared problem-solving and informed decisions.
These are meaningful differences. They should be understood and used intentionally.
But bringing people to the table earlier does not ensure they listen to each other. Combining responsibilities does not automatically establish trust. Creating a process for shared decisions does not ensure that the people involved are prepared to make them.
DBIA itself describes design-build as both a process and a mindset, emphasizing trust, mutual respect, teamwork, and shared project goals. The contractual arrangement and the way people work within it both matter.
A delivery method can create the conditions for collaboration. The team still has to turn those conditions into daily practice.
Hard Bid Does Not Have to Mean Hard Relationships
I do not believe a competitively bid project should come with an expectation of adversarial behavior.
Some of the strongest teamwork I have experienced has occurred on design-bid-build projects. The team understood its responsibilities, respected each other’s expertise, raised concerns early, and worked through challenges without making them personal.
That did not mean there were no disagreements. It meant disagreement was handled professionally.
A contractor could identify a concern without being treated as difficult. A designer could explain the intent behind a detail without becoming defensive. An owner could question a cost or reject a scope change without undermining the working relationship.
Nobody had to abandon their responsibilities to act like a team.
To me, that is an important distinction. We should not lower our expectations for professional behavior because a project was hard bid, just as we should not assume those expectations will take care of themselves under alternative delivery.
Collaboration is not something we establish once. It is something we maintain.
Alternative Delivery Still Requires Substantial Work
Alternative delivery can be an excellent fit. It also requires genuine buy-in, significant front-end work, and continued attention throughout the project.
DBIA’s best-practice framework addresses not only procurement and contracting, but also the execution of the project. The work does not end when the team is selected or the agreement is signed.
In my experience, the front-end work needs to include more than a kickoff meeting and a statement that everyone intends to collaborate.
The team needs to agree on how decisions will be made, how concerns will be raised, how costs and risks will be discussed, and what happens when people disagree. Those expectations need to be understood by the people doing the daily work, not just the people who participated in the interview.
Then the team has to keep doing that work.
Revisit expectations when the project moves into a new phase. Bring new team members into the conversation. Address communication problems before they become accepted habits. Follow up on commitments. Make room for constructive feedback.
What Collaboration Needs to Look Like in Practice
For a team to be truly collaborative, five expectations must be met:
- Shared Documentation: Teams must work from a single source of truth, where information is accessible to all stakeholders in real-time, reducing the "information hoarding" that kills trust.
- Early Conflict Resolution: Problems are identified at the peer level and resolved quickly, rather than being escalated for posturing or legal positioning.
- Cost Transparency: Financial decisions are made based on project outcomes rather than individual profit protection, requiring a high degree of mutual trust.
- Cross-Disciplinary Input: The contractor provides constructability feedback during design, and the designer stays engaged during construction to ensure intent is met.
- Mutual Professional Respect: Acknowledging that every party—Owner, Architect, Contractor, and Sub—has a critical role to play and a business to run.
Collaboration and Accountability Belong Together
For me, setting a collaborative team means making the expectations specific enough that people know what to do differently.
-
Challenge the issue, not the person. Question an assumption, explain a concern, or disagree with a recommendation without making the interaction personal.
-
Raise concerns early and bring useful information. Explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and what decision or support is needed. Do not wait for a complete solution before flagging a developing problem.
-
Make authority and commitments clear. Identify who can make the decision, who is responsible for the next step, and when a response is needed. Communicate promptly when a commitment cannot be met.
-
Work through solutions without avoiding responsibility. Evaluate options together while documenting scope, cost, schedule, and responsibility through the agreed project processes.
-
Apply the expectations to everyone. Owners and owner’s representatives need to listen, provide timely direction, and follow through just as consistently as designers and contractors.
These are the behaviors I want to see whether the project is design-bid-build, CM/GC, design-build, or another delivery model.
They are also the behaviors I want our team to model.
Collaboration and Accountability Belong Together. I do not define collaboration as everyone agreeing, avoiding difficult conversations, or saying yes to every request. A collaborative team still needs scope discipline, cost review, schedule accountability, quality expectations, and clear documentation. Nobody should be asked to overlook a legitimate concern simply to preserve the appearance of teamwork. You can question a change order respectfully. You can hold someone to a commitment without embarrassing them. You can document a disagreement accurately without turning the record into a personal criticism.
The goal is not to eliminate every point of friction. The goal is to handle friction without losing the ability to work together.
Respect does not require agreement. Accountability does not require hostility.
What Owners Should Ask
When evaluating a delivery method, I encourage owners to look beyond whether it is described as collaborative.
Ask what opportunities the structure creates, what the owner will need to contribute, and how the team will put collaboration into practice.
What will meaningful preconstruction participation look like? How will disagreements be escalated? What information will support decisions? How will the team recognize and address behavior that is not consistent with its commitments?
Most importantly, ask:
“What are we going to do, consistently, to make this a collaborative project?”
That is the work our team has been focusing on this week. Not choosing between collaboration and accountability, but establishing the behaviors that allow both to exist.
At RW Solutions, I see that as a central part of owner’s representation: helping owners understand the contractual framework while being equally intentional about the people, expectations, and working relationships within it.
Choose the delivery method thoughtfully. Then invest in the team just as thoughtfully.