It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you.
In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them.
The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.
> It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you.
> In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them.
Doesn't matter - the people paying for the software are not the ones that are going to be using it, so showing it to them is pointless (they just want their bullet points/requirements checked off).
Showing the software to the users is equally pointless, because they don't have the authority to request changes (any change is a bill that has to be approved).
> The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.
Maybe, but unless you have an alternative that addresses the problems in not having contracts, there's little point in telling other people that they don't understand the problem.
In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them.
The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.