By Ian Rogers, founder and CEO of Procync
The UK construction industry is one of the most important sectors in the economy. It shapes the places we live, work, and spend our time. It provides homes for families, schools for children, hospitals for communities, and infrastructure that keeps the country moving. Yet despite its importance, the industry continues to struggle with projects that run late, go over budget, or fail to deliver the quality expected. The reasons are often complex, but one factor stands out time and again: misaligned incentives.
When consultants, contractors, and developers come together on a project, they rarely share the same set of priorities. Consultants are typically rewarded for producing designs quickly and at a competitive fee. Contractors are focused on protecting margins, managing risk, and keeping costs under control. Developers, meanwhile, are under pressure to deliver projects at speed and maximise returns for investors, and there is rarely enough communication between these groups. Each of these objectives makes sense in isolation, but when they are not aligned, they create tension. Instead of collaboration, you get conflict and instead of efficiency, you get waste.
On a housing development, for example, the consultant’s main goal may be to produce a design that looks impressive. The contractor then inherits drawings that require expensive changes on site. Then the developer, anxious to keep the programme moving, pushes for progress regardless of the practical challenges. Everyone is working hard, but they are pulling in different directions, which leads to a trickle-down of delays, disputes, and frustration. What could have and should have been a straightforward project becomes a battleground of competing interests.
This misalignment of incentives is inconvenient, costly and leads to claims, litigation, and damaged reputations. It undermines trust between parties and affects confidence in the industry. Most importantly, it prevents us from delivering the homes and infrastructure that communities desperately need. At a time when the UK faces housing shortages, a cumulative deficit of approximately 4.3 million homes, we cannot afford to let misaligned incentives sabotage progress.
The problem is deeply rooted in the way projects are procured and contracts are structured. Traditional procurement models often reward lowest price rather than best value. Contracts are written to protect individual parties rather than encourage collaboration. Success is measured in narrow terms, such as hitting a cost target or completing a design package, rather than delivering a project that actually works for everyone, and thinks about the whole life of a building. In this environment, it is hardly surprising that incentives pull people apart rather than bring them together.
The solution is not complicated, but it does require a change in mindset. Incentives must be structured so that success for one party means success for all. That means contracts that reward collaboration rather than confrontation. It means procurement models that value quality, sustainability, and long‑term outcomes over the lowest price. It means leadership that sets a clear vision for shared success and holds everyone accountable to it. When incentives are aligned, projects run more smoothly, risks are managed more effectively, and the end product is better for the people who use it.
Aligning incentives can transform outcomes, because when consultants, contractors, and developers are encouraged to work as one team, the atmosphere changes. Problems are solved faster, innovation is embraced, and trust is built. It is about recognising that the best results come when those realities are balanced with a commitment to shared goals. A contractor who knows that solving a design issue will be recognised and rewarded is far more likely to lean in and collaborate. A consultant who understands that their design choices will directly impact delivery is more likely to think practically. A developer who sees that investing in better coordination will reduce disputes is more likely to support it.
There are already examples of this approach working in practice. Framework agreements in the public sector, alliancing models in infrastructure, and integrated project delivery in commercial developments all show that when incentives are aligned, outcomes improve. These models may not be perfect yet, but they demonstrate that change is possible. The challenge is to make alignment the norm rather than the exception.
For homeowners and self‑builders, the lesson is just as relevant. When you bring together architects, builders, and suppliers, make sure their incentives are aligned. If your architect is rewarded for speed but your builder is penalised for design changes, you are likely setting yourself up for conflict. If your supplier is incentivised to cut costs but your builder is measured on quality, you will face compromises. Aligning incentives does not mean everyone gets exactly what they want, but it does mean everyone is working towards the same outcome: a home that is delivered on time, on budget, and to the standard you expect.
The UK construction industry has an opportunity to move beyond the cycle of breakdowns and disputes. By tackling incentive misalignment head‑on, we can create a sector that delivers projects more reliably and creates long-term change. It is time to stop letting misaligned incentives sabotage our work and start building a culture where success is truly shared. The future of construction depends not just on new technology or innovative materials, but on how we work together. Aligning incentives is fundamental for that change to happen.