Why Mobilisation Is the Most Commercially Risky Phase of Any Program

By Arlington Blog 0 Comments

When organisations think about commercial risk, their attention typically focuses on procurement and contract negotiation. This is where prices are set, risk is allocated, and obligations are formally agreed. Considerable effort is invested in getting this phase right — and rightly so.

What is far less recognised is that the greatest commercial risk often emerges after the contract is signed, during mobilisation.

Mobilisation is the point at which strategy meets reality. It is where contractual assumptions collide with operational constraints, where delivery teams are stood up, and where the tone of the commercial relationship is set. Decisions made during this phase are rarely labelled as “commercial,” yet they frequently have long-term commercial consequences that are difficult — and sometimes impossible — to unwind.

Mobilisation Is Where Contracts Are Interpreted for the First Time

Until mobilisation begins, a contract exists largely in theory. Obligations are defined, governance is described, and responsibilities are allocated — but none of this has yet been tested.

Mobilisation is the first time the contract is interpreted in practice:

What does “Day 1 readiness” actually mean?
How will service levels be measured in reality?
What constitutes an acceptable dependency?
How will ambiguities be resolved under time pressure?

These interpretations are often made quickly to keep momentum. Once made, they tend to become the de facto operating model, regardless of what the contract technically allows.

This is why mobilisation is so consequential: it establishes how the contract will actually work.

Early Decisions Create Long-Term Precedents

Mobilisation is typically characterised by urgency. Timelines are tight, stakeholders are impatient for progress, and there is a strong desire to demonstrate early momentum.

In this environment, organisations often make pragmatic choices:

Allowing milestones to proceed with partial deliverables
Accepting temporary workarounds to meet deadlines
Deferring governance processes until “after go-live”
Absorbing scope uncertainty to avoid early conflict

Each of these decisions may be reasonable in isolation. The risk lies in what they collectively signal.

When flexibility becomes the norm during mobilisation, it sets expectations — both internally and with suppliers — about how strictly obligations will be enforced. Over time, these expectations harden into precedent, subtly shifting commercial balance.

Mobilisation Is Where Leverage Declines Most Rapidly

Commercial leverage is at its highest at contract signature and declines thereafter. Mobilisation accelerates this decline.

As mobilisation progresses:

Suppliers embed knowledge and capability
Dependencies on specific people, tools, or configurations increase
Switching costs rise
Timelines become less forgiving

At the same time, organisations often hesitate to exercise contractual rights during mobilisation for fear of:

Delaying delivery
Damaging relationships
Appearing uncooperative early in the engagement

The result is a widening gap between contractual rights and practical leverage — a gap that often opens quietly during mobilisation and persists for the remainder of the program.

Mobilisation Decisions Are Rarely Framed as Commercial Decisions

One of the reasons mobilisation risk is underestimated is that decisions made during this phase are usually framed as operational.

They are discussed in terms of:

Delivery sequencing
Resource availability
Technical readiness
Stakeholder expectations

What is often overlooked is that these operational decisions can:

Redefine scope boundaries
Shift risk allocation back to the client
Normalise non-compliance
Weaken performance management mechanisms

Because they are not labelled as commercial decisions, they are rarely subjected to the same level of scrutiny or governance.

The Tension Between Momentum and Discipline

Mobilisation sits at the intersection of two competing imperatives:

The need to move quickly and build confidence
The need to establish control and preserve leverage

Many organisations resolve this tension by prioritising momentum, intending to “tighten things up later.” In practice, later rarely comes.

Once mobilisation behaviours are established, changing them requires conscious intervention — often at a time when delivery pressure is even higher.

This does not mean mobilisation should be rigid or adversarial. It means it should be deliberate.

Why Early Governance Matters More Than Perfect Contracting

No contract can anticipate every mobilisation scenario. What matters is not perfection at negotiation, but how deviations are handled once delivery begins.

Strong mobilisation governance includes:

Clear forums for resolving ambiguity
Documented decisions when flexibility is exercised
Explicit treatment of “temporary” arrangements
Alignment between delivery leads and commercial oversight

This ensures that necessary pragmatism does not silently erode the commercial position.

The Role of Contract Management During Mobilisation

Mobilisation is not a transactional phase. It is interpretive, judgement-heavy, and precedent-setting. As such, it requires active contract management — not just administration.

Effective contract management during mobilisation helps:

Translate contractual obligations into operational processes
Identify where delivery decisions have commercial implications
Preserve intent while accommodating reality
Ensure early concessions do not become permanent entitlements

When contract management is absent or under-weighted during mobilisation, organisations often discover the impact only much later — when leverage has already been lost.

Mobilisation Sets the Behavioural Norms

Perhaps the most underestimated risk of mobilisation is behavioural.

Suppliers observe closely during this phase:

What gets enforced
What gets escalated
What gets waived
How issues are handled under pressure

These observations shape how suppliers behave for the remainder of the contract. Mobilisation, in effect, trains the delivery relationship.

A mobilisation phase that is loosely governed and inconsistently enforced signals one set of behaviours. A mobilisation phase that is pragmatic but disciplined signals another.

Why Organisations Underestimate Mobilisation Risk

Mobilisation is often viewed as a bridge between contracting and delivery — necessary, but temporary. As a result, it does not always receive the same senior attention as procurement or implementation.

Yet from a commercial perspective, mobilisation is where:

Contractual intent is translated into reality
Leverage declines fastest
Precedents are established
Behavioural norms are set

Ignoring this phase does not make it lower risk. It simply makes the risk harder to see.

Treating Mobilisation as a Commercial Phase

Organisations that consistently achieve better outcomes tend to treat mobilisation as a commercial phase, not just a delivery one.

They recognise that:

Early decisions have long shadows
Flexibility must be intentional and documented
Governance should be light but present
Contract management must be active, not passive

This does not slow delivery. It stabilises it.

Closing Thought

The irony of mobilisation is that it is both short and enduring; short in duration, but enduring in impact.

By the time issues become visible months or years later, the root causes can often be traced back to decisions made in the first few weeks — decisions that felt operational at the time but were deeply commercial in effect.

Understanding this is not about being risk-averse. It is about being commercially aware at the moment it matters most.

About Arlington

Arlington delivers advanced sourcing, digital transformation, and commercial advisory solutions designed to accelerate performance, reduce risk, and protect long-term business value.

Why Mobilisation Is the Most Commercially Risky Phase of Any Program