Rebalancing agile in government
How public teams can lead processes with clarity while partnering effectively with vendors.
Across government, teams are told they’re “doing agile,” yet many find themselves following processes shaped almost entirely by vendors. It’s a quiet inversion: external partners set the pace, structure the backlog, and drive delivery decisions—while public teams try to keep the work moving.
This dynamic isn’t the product of bad intentions. It’s the product of structures, contracts, and capacity gaps that weren’t designed for multidisciplinary digital work. But those structures can evolve. And when they do, public teams can regain the clarity and confidence needed to deliver services that truly work for the people they serve.
Agile can serve the public good—but only when public teams provide the leadership and clarity that guide the work.
Agile structures take intention. Public teams shape the balance, clarity, and collaboration needed for reliable delivery.
These insights draw, in part, from recent engagements where we supported product and human-centered design teams as they navigated the complexities of vendor collaboration and agile delivery. Learn about our workshops.
Why agile processes drift away from public leadership
In our work supporting public teams—including recent workshops with human-centered design practitioners and product managers—we’ve observed consistent patterns in how agile processes can drift out of balance.
Internal teams are stretched thin or understaffed, leaving space for others to fill gaps.
Vendors arrive with familiar frameworks and polished rituals, and teams assume these must be followed as-is.
Legacy contracts often cast vendors in the role of process owners.
Product, design, and research roles inside government are still maturing.
Teams worry that asserting leadership might slow down delivery.
None of these are failings. They’re predictable outcomes of systems that weren’t built for collaborative digital work.
Common signs the agile process needs rebalancing
In many engagements, we see agile practices drifting away from public leadership—not because of misalignment, but because of unclear roles, legacy contract structures, and uneven internal capacity. When this happens, teams often experience:
Backlogs that are difficult to influence
Sprint goals shaped by delivery needs rather than mission outcomes
Research treated as an optional or late-stage task
Accessibility standards applied inconsistently
Definitions of done centered on outputs rather than impact
Internal teams feeling reactive rather than empowered
These are structural signals, not personal shortcomings. They point to opportunities for clearer public leadership and more intentional collaboration.
A stronger model: public teams lead, vendors support
Rewriting the vendor playbook doesn’t mean sidelining vendors. It means repositioning them within a public-led framework that protects mission, people, and practice.
Three principles guide the shift:
Public teams lead on process and priorities.
Vendors contribute expertise, capacity, and craft.
Contracts reinforce partnership—not hierarchy.
This model doesn’t minimize vendors’ value. It clarifies the roles that enable both partners to deliver the best outcomes.
How public teams can reclaim leadership
Collaboratively.
These steps draw directly from patterns we’ve seen in client work—especially around agile governance, vendor engagement, and shared practice.
Co-create sprint goals with public teams leading mission alignment.
Sprint goals work best when they start from the public team’s understanding of mission needs, then incorporate vendor input on feasibility and delivery. This ensures the work is paced and pointed toward outcomes that matter most.Guide backlog prioritization using public-centered criteria.
When public teams bring research insights, stakeholder expectations, and program priorities into prioritization conversations, vendors can support delivery more intentionally. This shifts backlog management from reactive to strategic.Establish shared definitions of ready and done.
Clear expectations—reflecting accessibility, research integration, quality thresholds, and outcome alignment—prevent misalignment and keep the work grounded in public values, not just outputs.Build transparency into all delivery rituals.
Practices like estimation, backlog grooming, and sprint planning should be visible and participatory. Transparency strengthens trust and reduces the risk of decisions being made out of view of public teams.Practice agile rituals internally to build fluency.
Low-stakes or practice sprints help teams understand the rhythm and purpose of agile rituals, reducing reliance on vendors to drive the process and enabling more confident leadership.Embed expectations in contracts.
Contracts that reinforce shared decision-making, public-led rituals, accessibility, research practices, and documentation norms give vendors clarity and protect long-term quality. Contract language shapes behavior—this is where alignment becomes durable.Maintain regular touchpoints with contracting officers.
Routine communication with COs or CORs helps surface vendor dynamics early, ensures delivery insights inform future procurements, and keeps all parties aligned on expectations and constraints.
A note on internal capacity
Reclaiming leadership doesn’t mean doing everything alone. It means creating space, clarity, and confidence for public teams to engage fully in the work.
That includes:
clarifying lanes across product, design, research, and program leadership
reducing cognitive overload
establishing consistent rituals
pausing strategically to realign
Internal leadership grows when teams are given the room to lead—supported by collaborative partners who reinforce clarity and practice.
What it looks like when public teams lead the agile process
When teams guide the work:
The cadence is rooted in mission, not external velocity.
Stakeholders regain trust in the process.
Research and accessibility become integral, not optional.
The backlog becomes purposeful and navigable.
Teams feel ownership and clarity.
Vendors deliver stronger, more aligned work.
This is what it looks like when agile truly supports the public good.
Closing reflection
Public teams carry the responsibility to deliver services that millions rely on. Vendors contribute vital expertise and capacity, but the stewardship of priorities, process, and outcomes belongs with the public.
Agile becomes a force for public value when those closest to the mission lead the work.
We’re here to help
Many of the patterns described in this piece emerged from recent client engagements—work where we helped teams clarify roles, strengthen internal leadership, and re-establish collaborative partnership with vendors. If your team is navigating similar dynamics, we support agencies through role-clarity workshops, vendor collaboration playbooks, and advisory work on contracting and process design. We’d be glad to discuss what could support your team’s clarity and confidence.
You might also be interested in:
