Join us at AgileDC 2019 for a Lightning Talk

John Margetis to Give Lightning Talk: “The Value of Preserving the Agile Mindset in 3d Party Vendor Contracts” on September 23 at 11:15am

Ignoring the importance of including a commitment to the Agile Mindset in a 3d party vendor contract introduces “mindset” and “collaboration” risk for the Project. These risks manifest into a prolonged (and more costly) effort to coach a team to a high performing state. In several cases, the team will never reach a state of high performance because of the obstacles that were introduced when the contract was executed. The end result is lower Return on Investment (ROI) for the capital invested into the Agile team and Project as a whole. This Lightning Talk will highlight several common practices observed in the industry that originate with a signature on a contract, but which directly conflict with the Agile Manifesto and Principles.


Outline/Structure of the Lightning Talk

– Problem Statement

– Real, Common industry examples of current vendor contract structure that clash with the Agile Manifesto & Principles

– Expansion of the examples to highlight associated “cost” incurred by not addressing the Agile Mindset in the Contract

Learning Outcome

Increased awareness that there is a need to “shift left” and prevent downstream coaching problems and team inefficiencies by structuring contracts correctly, prior to “Sprint 1”.

Target Audience

Coaches, PMO, Developmnent Leadership, Procurement / Vendor Management, Staff Augmentation Agencies, Outsourcers, anyone else who is affected by this industry problem…

Prerequisites for Attendees

Understand the importance of the following when it comes to coaching a team of contractors to a higher level of performance:

– Commitment to collaboration

– Commitment to mindset

– Common commitment to success (specifically: what does the vendor define as “success” and what does the client define as “success”)

– Commitment to an environment of Trust

Related Articles

Beyond the Sprint

Why it is important for an Agile software development team to understand that the work they produce is a corporate investment expected to yield value in the form of an internal process improvement or marketable commodity.

If an Agile software development team is treated merely as a “staff augmentation” line item, and not as a strategic partner in an investment project, there is a high risk that stakeholders will not achieve the results they originally intended – they will not achieve maximum process development / improvement levels, cost savings, or highest possible returns on investment that the business has intended. The teams in such a scenario risk falling into an “order-taking” mindset vs. a more proactive and innovative mindset. If this occurs, the project execution results risk being only marginally better than in a “Waterfall” approach…the return on investment will be low, because sprint over sprint, low-commitment “order-takers” will not succeed in delivering the highest quality of acceptable software…this phenomenon results in reduced value delivered over the duration of the project. In other words, in terms of cost analysis, the company will have just paid for less than they had planned for.

Read More »

AGILENOMICS™ Newsletter – November–December 2019

November 2019 marked another historic milestone in the journey of launching the AGILENOMICS™ brand. After a significant amount of collaboration throughout 2019 with our web developers Rolla Creative, LLC, the www.agilenomics.net website qualified for a USPTO trademark registration for classes 042 and 035. With this formal registration, the AGILENOMICS™ brand has …

Read More »

Introducing “Value-Side” Thinking & Decision Making

It is common for corporations to focus on “cost-cutting” measures. While it is an extremely important economic principle to maximize profits by lowering costs, ignoring the impacts of business investment decisions on value creation can be detrimental to the quest for maximum profits. In this light, making cost-based or “cost-side” decisions without adding “value-side” thinking and decision making is not advisable.

Read More »