Across major infrastructure, utilities and service procurements, behavioural evaluation has become increasingly common.
Clients are investing significant time and effort assessing how delivery teams think, collaborate, lead and respond under pressure. Interviews, workshops, simulations and team interactives now sit alongside technical, commercial and pricing evaluations as regular features of major procurements.
This is a positive shift.
After all, projects are delivered by people.
No matter how compelling a methodology, design solution or price submission may be, success is ultimately determined by the capability of people to work together through uncertainty, complexity and pressure.
Yet as behavioural evaluation becomes more sophisticated, an important question is emerging:
Are we evolving the way we think about behavioural evaluation, or simply applying more sophisticated tools to a fundamentally transactional process?
The Next Evolution
Many procurement processes still treat behavioural evaluation as a discrete workstream.
The behavioural specialists assess behaviours.
The commercial team assesses commercials.
The technical team assesses technical capability.
The procurement team manages the process.
The transaction advisor coordinates the overall evaluation.
The outcome is then aggregated into a recommendation.
This approach appears logical.
But it assumes behaviour exists independently of the environment in which those behaviours will be required to operate.
Anyone who has led a major project knows this is rarely true.
The behaviours observed during procurement are often heavily influenced by the system that surrounds them after award.
Governance structures.
Decision rights.
Contract mechanisms.
Accountability frameworks.
Client capability.
Leadership maturity.
Organisational design.
These factors frequently have as much influence on project outcomes as the capability of the appointed team itself.
Which raises an important challenge.
Can we genuinely evaluate future project behaviours without understanding the context in which those behaviours will be required to perform?
The Missing Variable: The Client
One of the most interesting characteristics of behavioural evaluation is that it tends to focus almost entirely on the proponent team.
Yet the client team is often half of the future relationship.
The successful proponent does not arrive into a vacuum.
They enter an existing environment with established cultures, leadership styles, governance practices, decision-making approaches and behavioural norms.
Some client environments create the conditions for collaboration, innovation and shared accountability.
Others unintentionally create the conditions for defensiveness, escalation, bureaucracy and contract-driven behaviours.
The reality is that the same contractor can perform exceptionally in one environment and struggle immensely in another.
Not because the people changed.
Because the system changed.
Before organisations ask:
"Which team should we appoint?"
Perhaps they should first ask:
"What kind of team is most likely to succeed with us?"
The answer is not always the same.
Behaviour is a System Outcome
One of the most common misconceptions in procurement is the belief that behavioural evaluation is about identifying the "best" team.
In practice, it is often about identifying the team most likely to thrive within a particular delivery environment.
A highly collaborative contractor may be ideal where client decision-making is mature and governance supports joint problem solving.
Conversely, where governance is highly contractual and commercially focused, different capabilities may become more important.
Neither approach is inherently right or wrong.
The point is that context matters.
Behaviours cannot be separated from the conditions that enable or constrain them.
This means behavioural evaluators should have a voice in far broader conversations than interviews and workshops alone.
They should be contributing to discussions around:
- Governance structures
- Incentive frameworks
- Organisational design
- Client capability
- Leadership alignment
- Transition strategy
- Mobilisation planning
Because these are not separate conversations.
They are the conditions that determine whether procurement intent is ultimately realised.
From Behavioural Evaluation to Behavioural Enablement
This is where behavioural evaluation begins to evolve.
The objective is no longer simply to assess teams.
The objective becomes understanding what it will take for those teams to succeed.
That subtle shift changes the conversation significantly.
Instead of asking:
"Who performed best during procurement?"
Clients begin asking:
"What conditions need to exist for this team to deliver extraordinary outcomes?"
The focus moves from selection alone towards enablement.
From assessment to performance.
From procurement to delivery.
The Missing Half of the Evaluation
Most behavioural evaluations focus exclusively on the proponent team.
The contractor, alliance partner, operator or consortium is assessed through interviews, workshops, simulations and interactive exercises designed to understand how that team is likely to perform if appointed.
Yet one critical element is frequently absent from the evaluation process.
The client.
The reality is that projects are not delivered by proponents alone. They are delivered by a combined system comprising client representatives, delivery partners, governance forums, leadership teams and decision-makers working together over many years.
A team that performs exceptionally well with one client may struggle with another. Not because the people have changed, but because the dynamics of the relationship have changed.
This raises an important question:
Why do we spend so much time evaluating one half of the future delivery relationship while investing so little effort in understanding the other half?
By better understanding the leadership style, decision-making approach, behavioural expectations and cultural characteristics of the client team, organisations can move beyond evaluating individual parties in isolation.
Instead, they can begin evaluating the combined probability of success.
Not simply:
"Is this a capable delivery team?"
But:
"If this team were appointed, how would they work alongside our team?"
"Where would the partnership naturally thrive?"
"Where might friction emerge?"
"What conditions would need to be created for both teams to succeed together?"
This represents a significant shift in thinking. The objective is no longer to identify the strongest contractor, operator or consortium on paper. The objective is to understand how the client team and delivery team are likely to function as a single delivery ecosystem.
In our experience, this is where some of the most valuable procurement insights emerge. Not from assessing the capability of either side independently, but from understanding the compatibility, complementarities and potential tensions that exist between them.
Ultimately, projects are not delivered by one team.
They are delivered by the relationship between teams.
And it may be that the most predictive behavioural assessment is not of the client or the proponent alone, but of how the two are likely to perform together.
Procurement Does Not End at Contract Award
Particularly in alliance, partnership, operational and long-term service environments, the most important behavioural period often begins after the contract is awarded.
The first 100 days establish expectations.
The first year establishes habits.
This is where culture becomes reality.
It is also where much of the insight generated through procurement is lost.
Clients spend months understanding what drives performance, how teams respond under pressure, where leadership risks exist and what conditions enable success.
Then procurement ends.
A new governance structure emerges.
New leaders join.
New processes take over.
And the original intent slowly dissipates.
The organisations achieving the strongest outcomes are increasingly those that maintain continuity from procurement through mobilisation and into delivery.
They recognise that behavioural evaluation is not simply about helping select a team.
It is about helping that team succeed.
A Different Question
As behavioural evaluation continues to mature, perhaps the question is no longer:
"How do we assess behaviours during procurement?"
Perhaps the better question is:
"How do we create the conditions in which the desired behaviours can exist?"
The answer may require us to think about behavioural evaluation differently.
Not as a procurement activity.
But as part of a broader system for improving project outcomes.
Because in the end, behaviours do not exist in isolation.
They emerge from the environments we create around them.
Self- Assessment: Behavioural Evaluation Maturity Check
Level 1: Assessment Focused
- ☐ Behavioural evaluation occurs as a standalone workstream.
- ☐ Performance is primarily judged on workshop and interview observations.
- ☐ Behavioural insights have limited influence on procurement design.
Level 2: Integrated Evaluation
- ☐ Behavioural evaluation informs broader procurement decision-making.
- ☐ Client representatives actively participate in behavioural assessments.
- ☐ Findings are considered alongside commercial and governance factors.
Level 3: System-Oriented
- ☐ Client capability and readiness are assessed before market engagement.
- ☐ Governance, incentives and organisation design are considered alongside behavioural findings.
- ☐ Behavioural specialists influence broader delivery design decisions.
Level 4: Behavioural Enablement
- ☐ Behavioural insights are carried into mobilisation and delivery.
- ☐ Client and delivery teams receive support and coaching after award.
- ☐ Procurement is viewed as the beginning of performance, not the end of selection.
Question: Which level best describes your organisation today?