>> This means that you can cut the project off after any $n number of sprints and know that you're getting a level of functionality proportionate to the time that was spent on the project.
Telling them $n sprints can be meaningless -- in practice, things just get pulled out of a sprint and pushed into the backlog, never to get done within $n sprints.
I worked on one project where the client specifically asked for "agile". Meanwhile, their behaviour during the execution phase was that they wanted to see waterfall style results.
It wasn't until the PM finally switched back to a waterfall that the project started seeing meaningful results-- i.e., the "let's move it to the backlog" tactic used by the technical team could no longer take place.
Of note is that this is the classic story of a company that adopts "agile" despite the fact that the culture of its employees did not suit the methodology.
Telling them $n sprints can be meaningless -- in practice, things just get pulled out of a sprint and pushed into the backlog, never to get done within $n sprints.
I worked on one project where the client specifically asked for "agile". Meanwhile, their behaviour during the execution phase was that they wanted to see waterfall style results.
It wasn't until the PM finally switched back to a waterfall that the project started seeing meaningful results-- i.e., the "let's move it to the backlog" tactic used by the technical team could no longer take place.
Of note is that this is the classic story of a company that adopts "agile" despite the fact that the culture of its employees did not suit the methodology.