1. Agile Contracts? AgilePrague 2012 Johannes Brodwall, Principal Architect Steria Norway @jhannes

2. Part I

3. Motivation

4. 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

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» make a difference?

7. Supplier Customer Hold on, I expected a much fancier UI for this. ?

8. Most common contracts: Fixed price Time and material

9. Supplier Customer Hold on, I expected a much fancier UI for this. Crap

10. Supplier Customer Hold on, I expected a much fancier UI for this. No problem, we’ll work some more

11. «Time and material» creates the most happiness

12. (Source: My best and worst projects)

13. «Time and material» creates the most happiness (Also for customer!)

14. So why care about the rest?

15. Do you pay taxes?

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 govt spend 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. Can Agile help?

19. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation: Contracts hurt Big tax-funded projects are inevitable Agile can help – but insufficient

20. Part II

21. PS2000 + Agile

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. PS2000: «Target price»

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. Whence PS2000?

29. Contract standard from Norwegian Computing Association

30. 2001: PS2000 with target 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. In progress 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. ? Bid Apr, 2010 Negotiation Aug, 2010 Mar, 2010 Elaboration Nov, 2010 Release 1 Sprint May, 2011 Acceptance Production Sept, 2011 Elabor ation Sprint SIGNED

36. Smart move: Reliable product backlog using scenarios

37. Big win: First release in use 1 year after contract, containing most used screen

38. Big loss: Feature creep of individual user stories

39. Completed 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 on price per release First release on T&M «Competing» suppliers

41. Big win: Delievered what was needed Government is happy Users are happy

42. Big loss: Full time requirement spec Hostile architecture team

43. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

44. Reality: We must compete We must commit

45. Part III

46. Wishful contracts

47. The source of our troubles

48. Fabulation Speculation Bungling Yelling Worrying 2 year - development Use

49. Fabulation Speculation Bungling Yelling Worrying 2 years - development Use Contract Price Scope Deliverable Ok?

50. The problem

51. Fabulation Speculation Bungling Yelling Worrying 2 years - development Use Contract Price Scope

52. A way out?

53. Pure fabriaction 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. Pricing: Unit pricing

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. Supplier Customer I need a screen shot for X. We want something simple. Ok. 2 kEURO

57. Supplier Customer Do you have anything to show for it? We’ve spent half the budget Nothing that is tested yet Okay, I’m pulling the plug

58. Supplier Customer Stop! We’ve spent the budget

59. Supplier Customer But I wanted rounded corners, and gradients! No problem, but that means it’s no longer «simple» Oh, never mind.

60. (I hate having this sort of discussions)

61. Supplier Customer But I wanted …! Oh, I guess we have to do it, then No way! Change order! Hmm…we didn’t consider that when we gave the price

62. Bidding: Competitive delivery

63. Supplier Customer Project reference Resumes Hourly rates Supplier Pre- qualification

64. Supplier

65. 6-10 weeks

66. Supplier Analysis Coding Delivery Analysis Coding Delivery Analysis Coding Analysis Delivery Supplier

67. Analysis Coding Delivery Analysis Coding Delivery Analysis Coding Analysis Delivery Supplier

68. Another model

69. Pure fabriaction Supplier Commitment: Δ ☺ Δ $ IMAGINE:

70. Questions and discussions

71. Conclusion

72. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

73. We need an answer for large investments

74. Norway’s answer ain’t half bad

76. But

77. We can do better

78. Thank you johannes@brodwall.com http://johannesbrodwall.com http://twitter.com/jhannes