I will address this question with reference to the original objectives of the drafters (in capitals) who wanted to achieve, by comparison with other forms, greater :
- FLEXIBILITY : i.e. the ability to more easily construct ‘fit for purpose’ commercial and contractual arrangements to suit the nature of the contract e.g. risk allocation and options chosen, extent of Contractor etc. and the strengths (financial and technical) of the Parties to it;
- CLARITY and SIMPLICICITY, so that the contract is more easily understood, is coherent document, has clearer roles and responsibilities, definitions for compensation events, etc etc so that people are more likely to follow it and therefore (a) participants are more lilely to follow the contract and therefore not be in breach and (b) not have arguments about meaning and interpretation; and
-STIMULUS GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT between the Parties to pro-actively address and resolve issues as opposed to let them run and then have a big bunfight / claim at the end about who these now high additional costs fall upon.
This should lead to better outcomes / benefits in terms of contracts being delivered to their time, cost and performance objectives for Employers and greater profitability for Contractors … which when I did my research years ago, by and large did ! No contract was worse for using NEC3 and the majority were considered better as a result.
While the ‘should’ above depends upon the skills, capabilities and culture of the participants to a contract, by setting up the right commercial framework, you are increasing the likelhood of it actually happening : in my research years ago, 90% of people said it was an improvement to some extent on traditional conditions of contract.