Deliverables-First Partnership Contract
Commit to outcomes and timing instead of selling an undefined block of hours
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 94%
Perez says that when he enters a new project, he does not begin by promising a number of hours. He specifies what he can bring and what he will deliver, because a time allocation alone says little about useful output. Bartlett agrees on deliverables but adds a timing requirement: expectations should make clear both what will arrive and when, especially when other work depends on it. Combined, their rule is to contract around contribution, output, and deadlines while making boundaries explicit. The mechanism reduces ambiguity without pretending time is irrelevant. Review performance against whether the agreed result arrived as expected, not whether someone appeared busy for the promised number of hours.
Origin
Diego Perez and Steven Bartlett compared project commitments on The Diary of a CEO.
Core principles
- 01Hours alone do not define useful contribution
- 02Concrete outputs make expectations discussable
- 03Timing still matters when others depend on the work
- 04Equal partnerships benefit from explicit commitments
How to run it
- 1
Define your contribution
State the capabilities, judgement, access, or work you can bring to the project.
Pro tip Describe contribution in language the partner can verify.
Watch out A broad promise to help is not a contribution definition.
- 2
Specify the outputs
Translate the contribution into concrete deliverables with a shared definition of completion.
Watch out Do not use outputs so vague that any activity can count.
- 3
Attach timing
Agree when outputs will be delivered and identify any dates that affect dependent work.
Pro tip Separate a final deadline from intermediate decision dates.
Watch out Deliverables without timing can still create expectation failures.
- 4
Set boundaries
Clarify what is not included, who decides, and which dependencies could change the commitment.
- 5
Review the outcome
Assess whether the promised result arrived to the agreed standard and timing rather than rewarding visible hours alone.
Watch out Some work still requires availability metrics in addition to outputs.
In the wild
Perez says he tells a new project what he can bring and deliver rather than promising 20 hours. Bartlett adds that he would also make the delivery timing explicit because unmet expectations can damage business relationships.
→ Both parties can judge the partnership through defined contribution, outputs, and dates instead of an ambiguous time promise.
Common mistakes
Promising hours without outcomes
A block of time does not tell a partner what useful result they should expect.
Leaving delivery dates implicit
Bartlett stresses that clear outputs still need timing when other commitments depend on them.
Is it for you?
Best for
New partnerships or projects where flexible working time matters but collaborators still need dependable outcomes.
Not ideal for
Roles legally or operationally defined by coverage hours, availability, or time-based billing.
From the transcript
“What I do specify is what I can do for you.”
“A, what I'll deliver, but also, um, clear deliverables in terms of like time.”
From the episode
Yung Pueblo: How To Let Go Of The Past, Connect With The Present, & Expand The Future