How can alliance models drive more collaboration in the water sector?

Program collaboration starts with the contract. In some conventional delivery models, the structures are vertical and risk is pushed down the chain. Teams can still work well together, but the incentives can pull people toward competing positions, especially when pressure builds. 

An alliance model flips that. It puts delivery outcomes at the center, then builds the rules around them: shared risk, shared reward and open-book reporting. It also creates a "no blame" environment where teams solve problems together instead of storing them up for the contract. That contrasts with more typical enterprise models where the client manages multiple separate contracts and can control individual outcomes — an approach that can introduce interface risks and a loss of integration. 

I saw the difference on a major program in the rail sector, where an alliance-type structure meant teams couldn’t step outside the shared model when problems surfaced. When a collaboration agreement is added on top of an existing contract, it provides more grey areas and conflicting priorities. In an alliance, there’s one shared, transparent model for everyone to follow. 

Moving from collaborative intent to delivery impact 

We applied the alliance model on Anglian Water's Strategic Pipeline Alliance (SPA). It’s the U.K.’s biggest drinking water grid program in a generation and one of the largest infrastructure programs in Europe, with more than 360 miles of new interconnector pipelines planned through 2030 under a five-year agreement. The East of England is the most water-scarce area in the country and receives about a third less rainfall than the rest of England. The new network will be capable of transferring ~700 million gallons (265 million liters) of water a day from the wetter north of the Anglian region to the drier south. 

Alliance models succeed when the fundamentals are set early: a safety mindset, a credible baseline cost, one integrated schedule across disciplines, and enough project or program management discipline to handle real commissioning complexity and build sequence. They also depend on clear information flows, embedded client leadership and swift, integrated decisions that keep trust high and friction low.  

SPA is just one example of this in alliance model in action: the TEAM2100 program is another successful application in the water industry. 

While optimization matters, the real skill is knowing when to stop refining, balance operational ambition with affordability, and get on with delivery. 

Recently, the SPA program put its first pipeline segment into service, a milestone reached through integrated design, commissioning planning and coordinated delivery. 

Put outcomes, risk and reward on the same page

I see collaboration as a delivery system. If the commercial model rewards individual optimization, programs see more interface friction, slower decisions and more time spent reconciling different versions of the truth. 

Alliancing requires much greater upfront work and then continuous improvement. Huge amount of hard work is needed in the early days to align behaviors, expectations and ways of working. In programs the size of SPA, teams arrive with different norms, reporting habits and appetites for risk. The difference is that the alliance model forces those conversations into the open early. That's critical, because that's when there is still room to reset expectations, lock down the cost baseline and agree on what’s best for the program when trade-offs appear. 

That matters in drought-resilience programs, where public scrutiny sits alongside schedule and affordability.  

Run interfaces within a coherent system

Even with the right contract, alliance delivery can still stall at interfaces: design changes handed to construction, commissioning constraints discovered late or information exchanged in formats that don't align. The key is to tie every interface to a decision and then make the timing explicit. 

For me, that interface role often means translating between parties rather than forcing a decision. In one negotiation on SPA, we moved the discussion forward by turning the contractor’s, consultant’s and client’s different priorities into language each could work with.  

We recently secured five years of additional work under the framework — a sign the model can mature and absorb change without losing momentum. 

The lesson is simple: Alliancing still needs disciplined project management. Commissioning complexity, sequencing and assurance don’t disappear. When decision rights are clear, schedules are integrated and leaders stay aligned on outcomes, teams spend less time competing internally and more time delivering work safely together — that stands up over the long term. 

All photos are courtesy of Matthew Power Photography