The integration of goal-based or outcome-driven contracts with agile project management methodologies has become increasingly common, particularly in interactions between large corporations and their vendors.

While this trend may seem like a recent innovation, it’s just a new iteration of a long-standing challenge: balancing flexibility in doing a project (dealing with scope creep, fixing crises, and the like) with the financial certainty that fixed-price contracts provide.

The shift toward goal-based contracts (essentially fixed-price agreements under a new guise ) is primarily finance-driven. The reasons are clear: corporations aim to minimise scope creep and cost overruns.

As project managers, our role involves accommodating these financial constraints while delivering successful outcomes. However, agile methodologies, now the default expectation within many organisations, inherently conflicts with fixed-price agreements (which are better fit to the waterfall methodology).

So how do we reconcile these two seemingly incompatible requirements?

I have found several practical ways to make this work (rather than just saying “Use scaled agile framework (SAFe)” or some other boring reply):

1. Clearly Defined Initial Cost Boundaries
Initially, costs must be explicitly fixed. This non-negotiable stance appeases finance departments, preventing early-stage roadblocks. While we know additional costs might arise later, establishing a firm baseline from the outset is crucial. Once you have got the project started, you can get ready to handle extra costs with separate statement of work agreements, but managers and such can get on with these while real people get on with delivery.

2. Shifting Goal Definitions
A potential (though problematic) solution involves redefining goals as effort-based rather than strictly scope-based, that is, hire a vendor for a defined period of time with a certain number of people to do the job. Although appealing due to its simplicity, this approach may lead to compliance risks (e.g., IR35 concerns ¹ ), particularly for smaller vendors, and can diminish vendor motivation as they know they will not be held to account for anything.

3. Breakdown deliveries into Smaller, Goal-Based Items
Another viable approach is segmenting the statement of work into smaller, individually priced items. This method simplifies justification of outcome and billing but can also result in significant administrative overhead and ongoing negotiations.

4. Categorizing Goals by Priority
A beneficial strategy involves dividing goals into mandatory and optional categories. Mandatory goals must be completed first, while optional goals can be adjusted or omitted to accommodate scope creep or unforeseen issues without compromising the fixed-price arrangement.

5. Internal Readiness and Client-Side Accountability
Implementing an internal readiness firewall can protect vendors from being unfairly penalised for client side delays or process inefficiencies. Clearly defined client-side responsibilities and associated SLAs ensure transparency and accountability.
Including explicit provisions for what occurs financially if these SLAs are breached helps maintain fairness.

6. Pre-Approved Contingency (Positive Change Budget)
Creating a “white-listed change budget” of approximately 5-20% of the total cost serves as positive contingency. Unlike traditional contingency funds viewed negatively, this budget is openly acknowledged, pre-approved, and requires minimal paperwork, making it much, much easier and less “finger pointy” to roll with a cost overrun.

7. Streamlined Escalation Pathways
Setting up non-confrontational, rapid escalation channels reduces friction. Both vendor and client teams should have clearly defined pathways for quickly addressing blockers without resorting to finger-pointing or aggressive tactics; this lets you behave far more in an agile way but within a waterfall-style contract.

8. Positive Incentives Rather than Penalties
Contracts should ideally balance penalties with positive incentives, rewarding early deliveries, high test pass rates, and other performance-enhancing milestones. This approach helps collaboration and productivity rather than defensiveness.

9. Separate Internal and External Retrospectives
Conducting internal retrospectives independently from vendor-involved sprint retrospectives can significantly reduce vendor frustration at fixing someone else’s issues while on a tight timeline and enhance internal process improvements. It allows teams to critically evaluate and address internal inefficiencies without placing undue burden on external partners.

10. Be Transparent
Finally, treating a Statement of Work (SoW) as an “outer fence” while operating internally through agile backlog management, fixed team capacities, and friendly releases helps prevent defensiveness, promoting clear, blame-free visibility of progress.

1. This is a form of UK-based disguised employee legislation [↩]

In the realm of project management, there’s a recurring tension between delivering a project as a neatly packaged entity (basically a number of signed-off documents from a project manager’s perspective) and delivering a project as a truly useful feature for the business.

Now on one side, pure project managers often focus on precise documentation, formal ownership, and clear boundaries. This approach can streamline budgeting, clarify responsibilities, and minimise risk, particularly helpful if something goes wrong.

On the other side, managers with a business or operational background tend to prioritise tangible outcomes that meet real-world needs, even if this requires a less orderly process. This style, while potentially more chaotic, can often produce better, more enduring results for the business.

Both approaches have clear benefits and drawbacks. A strict adherence to process and paperwork can ensure compliance, financial clarity, and an “adequate” solution that meets requirements; this gives you a sound basis to claim payment against goal-based contracts.

However, it may not fully address real business needs.

Conversely, focusing purely on delivering the best business outcome can lead to scope creep, cost overruns, and never getting a sign-off on the project, but it might also generate a more valuable end product that truly benefits the organisation.
In truth, I like a bit of column A and a bit of column B on this. You try to be as flexible to the business needs as you can while staying within your remit, and to this end, if you are honest with the business and say: “Look, we were made to sign this contract with these deliverables by our mutual bosses, and if we don’t do that, we won’t get paid. So please, can we do those first and then come back to the extra and different stuff you want?” it’s very often a good place to try balancing from.

We’ve all witnessed (or been) that person in a meeting who suddenly snaps back into reality when asked a question and says, “Sorry, could you repeat that?” It can be a little embarrassing,

but it’s more than just a momentary lapse in attention. In fact, it often reveals deeper problems in how we structure our time and our meetings.

I have found that there are a bunch of reasons why people tune out in meetings and how you can help fix that

1. They’re Too Busy

Sometimes, people use meeting time to catch up on “real work” because it’s the only break they get from constant interruptions.

They end up splitting their attention, doing neither their work nor participating in the meeting effectively. As Ron Swanson famously said, “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”

How to Fix It:

Is the meeting a necessity? Before scheduling a meeting, ask if it’s truly needed or if an email or chat message would suffice.

Set Clear Agendas: Let everyone know exactly what you’ll cover so participants can decide for themselves if their attendance is essential.

Create Focus Time: Encourage blocks of uninterrupted time in people’s schedules so they can tackle key tasks without needing to multitask during meetings.

2. There Are Too Many Meetings

In many organisations, calendars are jam-packed with back-to-back calls. Important stakeholders or subject matter experts get invited to every discussion, leaving them no room for actual work.

When people have too many meetings, they’re forced to do work at the edges—sometimes during meetings themselves.

How to Fix It:

Be Selective with Invites: Only invite those who genuinely need to be part of the discussion.

Combine or Shorten Meetings: If a meeting’s purpose overlaps with another, consider combining them or shortening its length.

Empower ‘No’: Create a culture where it’s acceptable to decline meetings when you’re not truly needed.

3. The Meetings Are Boring

Meetings that drone on about status updates or walk through slide after slide can cause people to tune out. If half the attendees aren’t actively involved, the meeting is probably unnecessary or poorly structured.

How to Fix It:

Keep It Interactive: Use formats that encourage participation, such as discussions or needing decisions

Stick to the Point: Share status updates or documents ahead of time so meeting time can focus on decision-making or problem-solving.

Ensure Relevance: If someone’s input isn’t required, let them skip the meeting. Their time will be better spent elsewhere.

In Summary

When someone stops paying attention in a meeting, it’s often a sign that the meeting—or the way work is organised, isn’t serving its purpose. Instead of assuming the individual is lazy or unprofessional, consider looking elsewhere for the cause.

Have you ever felt like your workmates in other departments just don’t get how important your work is? Chances are, they feel the same way about their work and you. In many organizations, especially large ones, teams tend to break down into three main perspectives, each with its own priorities and pressures. Let’s call them:

• The Project Perspective (Mr. Project)
• The Service Perspective (Mr. and Mrs. Service)
• The Audit Perspective (Mrs. Audit)

They’re all trying to do their jobs. Yet because they don’t see eye to eye on how to accomplish their goals, they often clash. To illustrate this, let’s head to the “IT Coffee Shop.”

The IT Coffee Shop Analogy

1. Mr. Project and the Sweet Coffee
Imagine you’re in a coffee shop. Mr. Project rushes in with a special order: a super sweet, strong coffee needed in 1 minute. He spots an entire stack of sugar packets, perfect! If he dumps them all in, he’ll get exactly what the order needs and be out of the door on time.
But just as he’s about to pour them in, Mr. and Mrs. Service step in and stop him.

2. Mr. and Mrs. Service: Balancing Supplies
Mr. and Mrs. Service object to Mr. Project taking all the sugar. it is all they have left for the day, and other customers will need some too. Their job is to keep the coffee shop running smoothly for everyone, not just this single urgent request.
But Mr. Project sees it differently: he has a deadline, a client to keep happy, and isn’t it the coffee shop’s job to ensure everything he needs is available? He has paid his money for coffee after all, hasn’t he?

3. Mrs. Audit: The Enforcer
Suddenly, Mrs. Audit arrives with new regulations: “No more than two packets of sugar per coffee cup, or the shop risks getting shut down!” Now, nobody is happy, but Mrs. Audit is thinking of all coffee shops and is trying to deal with the sugar crime wave that is affecting the country:

• Mr. Project can’t get all the sugar he wants. and now faces an angry client who was promised their sweet coffee.
• Mr. and Mrs. Service have even more hoops to jump through and work overhead just to hand out sugar.
• Mrs. Audit is just doing her job to ensure compliance but is now the “bad guy” from everyone else’s perspective.

Everyone’s intentions are good, but they’re completely at odds. Multiply this dynamic across dozens of simultaneous projects, and you can imagine the chaos.

So, how does this analogy translate into the real corporate world?

Project Delivery (Mr. Project)

• Focused on a clear start and end (Point A to Point B).
• Driven by tight deadlines and specific deliverables.
• Success = completing the project on time and on budget, no matter what.

Service & Support (Mr. and Mrs. Service)

• Responsible for ongoing operations (networks, servers, maintenance, the “day-to-day”).
• Must keep systems stable for everyone, not just one project.
• Success = minimal downtime, efficient resource use, balanced workload.

Audit & Security (Mrs. Audit)

• Charged with ensuring compliance, governance, and protection.
• Enforces rules and standards, even if it slows down a project or adds overhead to day-to-day services.
• Success = avoiding breaches, fines, or shutdowns.

Each group sees its own success metrics as paramount. And that’s where most conflicts spring up.

The Escalation Trap

When someone escalates an issue (and let’s face it, everyone does exactly that), “This is now top priority!” they assume the receiving team can just drop everything and do more.

That might work if they have spare capacity. But in reality, most teams are already stretched thin. If you ask someone working at 100% to give 110%, you’re pushing them into overload.

A more practical approach:

• Ask What Can Be Deprioritized – If you genuinely need more help, figure out what tasks can be dropped or delayed.
• Communicate Clearly – Explain why this new priority matters and the benefits it will bring.
• Negotiate Responsibly – Don’t treat every need like an emergency. Instead, coordinate so all parties know where to flex.

Why This Matters

Projects hit bottlenecks, services get overwhelmed, and audits seem meddlesome when we’re not seeing the bigger picture. Recognizing each perspective, and acknowledging its validity, helps us collaborate better. Whether you’re Mr. Project, Mrs. Service, or Mrs. Audit, here’s the takeaway:

• Understand each team’s constraints and goals.
• Communicate openly about priorities and resources.
• Be willing to compromise and shift priorities, rather than just piling on more “urgent” tasks.
• Our imaginary coffee shop is a silly example of what happens when departments can’t see beyond their own needs. By stepping back and sharing the sugar more strategically (so to speak),

If we understand each other’s perspectives, we can deliver better results that work for all departments.