Downloaded 13 times
Uploaded byJohannes Brodwall
Agile Contracts - AgilePrague2012
The document discusses using agile principles and contracts for large government IT projects. It proposes that "time and material" contracts create the most satisfaction, as they allow for collaboration over negotiation. However, large tax-funded projects require more structure. The document examines how the Norwegian PS2000 standard combines agile practices with target pricing models. It provides examples of projects that successfully blended agile and contracts, as well as areas that caused issues. Finally, it envisions an alternative approach using competitive bidding on small, independent teams with unit pricing for user stories. This could encourage collaboration over lengthy negotiations and change orders.
More Related Content
Similar to Agile Contracts - AgilePrague2012
More from Johannes Brodwall
Agile Contracts - AgilePrague2012
- 1. Agile Contracts? AgilePrague 2012 Johannes Brodwall, Principal Architect Steria Norway @jhannes
- 2.
- 3.
- 4. Agile Manifesto Individuals andinteractions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan
- 5. Agile Manifesto Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan
- 6. Does «contract» makea difference?
- 7. Hold on, Iexpected a much fancier UI for this. ? Customer Supplier
- 8. Most common contracts: Fixed price Time and material
- 9. Hold on, Iexpected a much fancier UI for this. Crap Customer Supplier
- 10. Hold on, Iexpected a much fancier UI for this. No problem, we’ll work some more Customer Supplier
- 11. «Time and material» createsthe most happiness
- 12. «Time and material» createsthe most happiness (Source: My best and worst projects)
- 13. «Time and material» createsthe most happiness (Also for customer!)
- 14. So why careabout the rest?
- 15. Do you paytaxes?
- 16. How should your government handle: • We’re running out of money for pensions • We need to change the rules! • The current system is huge
- 17. How should govtspend your money? • A big, state-run project? • Hire a random company to do it all? • Just pay consultants until it’s done? • “Just be agile”?
- 18.
- 19. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation: • Contracts hurt • Big tax-funded projects are inevitable • Agile can help – but insufficient
- 20.
- 21.
- 22. Typical Norwegian public sector project: «We need to replace huge system X…
- 23. Typical Norwegian public sector project: «We need to replace huge system X… … we’d like to use Scrum»
- 24.
- 25. (Target price: Set a budget, report cost. Supplier & client splits difference)
- 26. PS2000 + agile: «Colocated» «Sprints» «Sprint reviews» «Product owner» «Product backlog»
- 27. … but also «Negotation phase» «Requirement phase» «Acceptance test phase»
- 28.
- 29. Contract standard from Norwegian Computing Association
- 30. 2001: PS2000 withtarget price
- 31. 2009: PS2000 +Agile
- 32. Norwegian trends: • Active community • Meetups about contracts • Scrum certifications • Large and diverse consultancy industry
- 33. Some project highlights
- 34. LARM: Domain: Electricity reserve power Application: Operator UI Internal Integration Project size: 2 scrum teams plus support Organization: Supplier + Customer teams Colocated at customer site Team size: 7 per team Duration: 3 years (1,5 years left) Sprint length: 3 weeks (customer present) Releases: 3 times per year Contract: Target pricing for whole scope
- 35. Mar, 2010 Apr, ? 2010 Bid Aug, 2010 Negotiation SIGNED Nov, 2010 Elaboration Sprint May, Sept, 2011 2011 Release 1 Sprint Sprint Sprint Sprint Sprint Sprint Sprint Acceptance Production Elabor Sprint Sprint Sprint ation
- 36. Smart move: Reliable productbacklog using scenarios
- 37. Big win: First releasein use 1 year after contract, containing most used screen
- 38. Big loss: Feature creepof individual user stories
- 39. PERFORM: Domain: State pension fund Application: Case worker UI External Integration Process flow Project size: 12-14 scrum teams plus support Organization: Three suppliers with 3-6 teams Colocated at customer site Team size: 10 per team Duration: 3 years Releases: 3 times per year Sprint length: 3 weeks, with shared demo Contract: First release: Time & materials Subsequent: Target pricing per release
- 40. Smart move: Contract onprice per release First release on T&M «Competing» suppliers
- 41. Big win: Delievered whatwas needed Government is happy Users are happy
- 42. Big loss: Full timerequirement spec Hostile architecture team
- 43. Customer collaboration overcontract negotiation
- 44. Reality: • We must compete • We must commit
- 45.
- 46.
- 47. The source ofour troubles
- 48. 2 year -development Use Fabulation Speculation Bungling Yelling Worrying
- 49. 2 years -development Use Fabulation Contract Price Ok? Deliverable ScopeSpeculation Bungling Yelling Worrying
- 50.
- 51. 2 years -development Use Fabulation Contract Price ScopeSpeculation Bungling Yelling Worrying
- 52.
- 53. IMAGINE: Project size: Some scrum teams with independent users and product owners Organization: Colocated at customer site Team size: 6-8 per team Duration: 3 years Sprint length: 2 weeks, with shared demo Releases: Every month Bidding: Performance competition Contract: Target estimate per user story
- 54.
- 55. Menu: • Simple GUI: 20 kNOK • Complex GUI: 50 kNOK • GUI that customer decides how looks: 100 kNOK (Or 2, 5, 20 story points)
- 56. I need ascreen shot for X. We want something simple. Ok. 2 kEURO Customer Supplier
- 57. We’ve spent half the budget Do you have anything to show for it? Customer Nothing that is tested yet Supplier Okay, I’m pulling the plug
- 58. We’ve spent the budget Stop! Customer Supplier
- 59. But I wantedrounded corners, and gradients! No problem, but Customer that means it’s no longer «simple» Supplier Oh, never mind.
- 60. (I hate havingthis sort of discussions)
- 61. But I wanted…! Oh, I guess we have to do it, then Customer No way! Change order! Hmm…we didn’t Supplier consider that when we gave the price
- 62. Bidding: Competitive delivery
- 63. Project reference Resumes Hourly rates Supplier Supplier Customer Supplier Supplier Supplier Pre- qualification Supplier
- 64.
- 65. 6-10 weeks Supplier Supplier Supplier
- 66. Analysis Coding Supplier Analysis Analysis Coding Coding Supplier Analysis Coding Supplier
- 67. Analysis Coding Supplier Analysis Analysis Coding Coding Supplier Analysis Coding Supplier
- 68.
- 69.
- 70. Questions and discussions
- 71.
- 72. Customer collaboration overcontract negotiation
- 73. We need ananswer for large investments
- 74. Norway’s answer ain’t half bad
- 75. Norway’s answer ain’t half bad
- 76.
- 77. We can dobetter
- 78. Thank you johannes@brodwall.com http://johannesbrodwall.com http://twitter.com/jhannes