for party autonomy, process & outcome fairness
Cart 0

Neutral advocacy blog

Reasons why collaborative contracting is a major paradigm shift

Martin West

The change from traditional to collaborative contracting (CC) represents a major paradigm shift. Two major reasons why are: #1 - Introduction of a new accountability model and #2 - Introduction of a new collaborative paradigm Introduction of neutral advocate role supports the paradigm shift Reason #1 - Introduction of a new accountability model. The model has joint responsibility for decision making whilst maintaining individual accountability.   We are challenging the core rule of authoritarian management approach. The rule is "Always have one person responsible". The CC process will hold two or more parties accountable for success or loss. Both teams are accountable to...

Read more →


introducing collaborative contracting

Martin West

In this post, we outline the trend to collaborative approaches, key features and requirements of collaborative contracting.  We have covered in prior posts We outline the choice between T&M and fixed fee and how it leaves key requirements for contracting unmet. Contracts define the customer-service provider relationship required for project success. Are your contracting requirements met by traditional approaches?  We explore the Adversarial nature of traditional contracting  Collaborative contracting offers the IT Service sector an alternative to traditional contracting approaches.   trends towards more collaborative approaches The movement towards less adversarial frameworks in the legal system is strong. Key initiatives are part of this...

Read more →


when to use traditional or collaborative contracting methods?

Martin West

when to use traditional or collaborative contracting methods?

We have modeled the relationship between predictability and the need to learn. This is used as the basis for deciding which contract model to use. I.e. determine which model best addresses the specific requirements for a project or set of projects. We have outlined below 4 options. These are mapped in the charts below and discussed in terms of risk and conditions of use. The use of Small Batch size is modeled below. The context here is as a cadence for contracting and is not supported by fixed fee.                       ...

Read more →


Adversarial nature of traditional contracting

Martin West

In traditional contracting models, customers and service providers take adversarial positions. This is where one party’s gain is the other party’s loss. When interests are not aligned behaviours become adversarial. Examples of unaligned interests include margin, project profitability, and financial impacts to project performance. The situations described below illustrates the win/lose negotiation frame for traditional contracting: customer uses their power to drive the service provider price down. But take no accountability for a process improvement. One that would protect service provider margin on the new lower fee structure:  issue: Customer selected to win by getting a lower price. Took this action...

Read more →


Contracts define the customer-service provider relationship required for project success. Are your contracting requirements met by traditional approaches?

Martin West

Are you frustrated by having to select between time & materials (T&M) or fixed fee (FF)? I am.      I don’t want to choose between: service provider AND customer for contracting delivery risk; fixed scope AND flexible scope in a contract; committed project plan AND best efforts commitment; and competitive on scope AND competitive on resourcing to ensure value. I require: joint accountability - to have joint accountable for overall performance with individual accountabilities. Where the service provider (SP) is under the same pressure to complete on time within budget as me. i.e. if I have to pay more for the...

Read more →