{"id":194,"date":"2024-11-24T14:59:31","date_gmt":"2024-11-24T13:59:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agileway2manage.com\/home\/?p=194"},"modified":"2025-09-26T15:58:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T13:58:43","slug":"agile-contracting-partnership-engagement-models","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agileway2manage.com\/home\/2024\/11\/24\/agile-contracting-partnership-engagement-models\/","title":{"rendered":"Agile Contracting: 4 Engagement Models"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


This article aims to provide characteristics of fours different types of engagement models, on the context of scope flexibility<\/span> and ownership sharing<\/span> between client and partners; this work (article) is summary of my extensive working in agile contracting space for few of Europe’s biggest companies and collaboration with though leaders in this space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every organisation operates within its own unique context and cultural ecosystem. In a fast paced market where short development cycles are norm, it is more than ever important to formulate right partnership with suitable engagement model to lead the market and stay ahead of the competion. The classification outlined below aligns with the most common types of engagements seen today. These models are under constant evolution given the companies want to leverage partner\u2019s strength during the collaboration. Each of the four models is centered around a distinct collaboration purpose and desired value creation \u2014its primary guiding factor.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The first distinction between engagement models is based on scope<\/strong>. Agile is designed to evolve scope through close collaboration with end users, ultimately delivering outcomes that are more valuable and better suited to the customer needs. However, this does not mean that Agile cannot be applied to a fixed scope. The primary challenge in such cases is limited viability of scope adaptation and commercial \u2014since the concept of a fixed-price Agile engagement can seem contradictory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first engagement model, Fixed Scope (Agile), is built around delivering a known scope incrementally. The remaining three models, however, all feature open-ended scope and vary in the level of partner engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next model, Output Based, is the most commonly used today. It focuses on the diligent delivery of a subset of a broader operational scope\u2014such as development activities or specific support tasks in the form of T&M contractual engagement. In this model, the partner\u2019s involvement typically operates at the feature or story level, working primarily on user stories delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Co-Creation model, on the other hand, represents a deeper, more integrated partnership. Here, the partner\u2019s teams work closely with the client\u2019s teams, engaging in solutioning and architectural decisions from the start. The focus is on maximising value through continuous improvements and DevOps approach, automating processes wherever possible, and applying best Agile Engineering practices to ensure the delivery is both innovative and reliable. Delivery speed, Stability, service continuity, and customer value are central to this model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Outcome Based model is the most ambitious and limited. It aims to support entrepreneurship where partner is part of a broader commercial strategy. In this model, the primary focus is the creation and commercialisation of a product or service. There are two potential formats for partnership: a close collaboration in developing and launching the service (often involving a joint venture with shared risks and profits), or outsourcing the entire outcome to a trusted partner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Engagement models with key elements at high level:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Fixed Scope (Agile) Model:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>
\n

Purpose<\/strong>: Delivering a predefined scope incrementally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Characteristics: <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n