<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Optional scope contracts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/</link>
	<description>Nick Grossman&#039;s Big Boy Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:03:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-10192</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:16:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts-in-the-public-sector/#comment-10192</guid>
		<description>Right -- I actually came to that same conclusion yesterday writing a proposal.  Part 1 = fixed cost, Part 2 = flexible hours.  Rather than scope out part 2 now, when you know the least, decide about it midway through the project, once you have a better understanding.  I think this approach has potential.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right &#8212; I actually came to that same conclusion yesterday writing a proposal.  Part 1 = fixed cost, Part 2 = flexible hours.  Rather than scope out part 2 now, when you know the least, decide about it midway through the project, once you have a better understanding.  I think this approach has potential.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-13233</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts-in-the-public-sector/#comment-13233</guid>
		<description>Right -- I actually came to that same conclusion yesterday writing a proposal.  Part 1 = fixed cost, Part 2 = flexible hours.  Rather than scope out part 2 now, when you know the least, decide about it midway through the project, once you have a better understanding.  I think this approach has potential.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right &#8212; I actually came to that same conclusion yesterday writing a proposal.  Part 1 = fixed cost, Part 2 = flexible hours.  Rather than scope out part 2 now, when you know the least, decide about it midway through the project, once you have a better understanding.  I think this approach has potential.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seb</title>
		<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-10173</link>
		<dc:creator>Seb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts-in-the-public-sector/#comment-10173</guid>
		<description>OpenGeo&#039;s had some success selling contracts that are support-plus-bundled-hours, which is another way of contracting around the same problem, I think.  Sometimes, public sector clients have gone for them.

In future rounds of GeoNode work, something we are likely to try out is working one of these support+hours contracts _into_ fixed cost contracts.  In theory, this buries the flexibility under a commodity product purchase but leaves that flexibility there so that the client can be enormously appreciative later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OpenGeo&#8217;s had some success selling contracts that are support-plus-bundled-hours, which is another way of contracting around the same problem, I think.  Sometimes, public sector clients have gone for them.</p>
<p>In future rounds of GeoNode work, something we are likely to try out is working one of these support+hours contracts _into_ fixed cost contracts.  In theory, this buries the flexibility under a commodity product purchase but leaves that flexibility there so that the client can be enormously appreciative later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seb</title>
		<link>http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-13232</link>
		<dc:creator>Seb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wrkng.net/2009/12/optional-scope-contracts-in-the-public-sector/#comment-13232</guid>
		<description>OpenGeo&#039;s had some success selling contracts that are support-plus-bundled-hours, which is another way of contracting around the same problem, I think.  Sometimes, public sector clients have gone for them.

In future rounds of GeoNode work, something we are likely to try out is working one of these support+hours contracts _into_ fixed cost contracts.  In theory, this buries the flexibility under a commodity product purchase but leaves that flexibility there so that the client can be enormously appreciative later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OpenGeo&#8217;s had some success selling contracts that are support-plus-bundled-hours, which is another way of contracting around the same problem, I think.  Sometimes, public sector clients have gone for them.</p>
<p>In future rounds of GeoNode work, something we are likely to try out is working one of these support+hours contracts _into_ fixed cost contracts.  In theory, this buries the flexibility under a commodity product purchase but leaves that flexibility there so that the client can be enormously appreciative later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

