Kate Vitasek contrasted prescriptive statements of work with more flexible ones that allow a supplier to be creative and drive innovation. The 2017 Constructrr conversation with Kate Vitasek explored what has to change when the buyer wants a shared outcome instead of narrow compliance.
Kate described the Vested approach through five connected rules. The value of the framework was not a promise that one contract model fits every relationship. It was the order in which the parties define the work.
Five rules were meant to operate as one system
Kate Vitasek began with an outcome-based business model, then moved to flexible statements of work, measurable desired outcomes, a pricing model with incentives, and insight-based governance.
Kate tied measurement and incentives back together: “The rules work together to create a system.” In her explanation, removing one rule created friction elsewhere in the relationship.
Outcomes and baselines come before the reward
Later in the conversation, Kate said the buyer and supplier had to agree on the desired outcomes before linking money and incentives to them. Her case example made the sequence concrete: identify the outcome, define how it will be measured, establish the baseline, and then decide how risk and reward will be shared.
That sequence protects both sides from an incentive that sounds aligned but rests on different definitions of success. If the baseline is unsettled, a later claim of improvement can become another argument rather than a shared result.
Governance is where the relationship handles change
Kate Vitasek contrasted oversight with insight-based governance. She described the latter as managing the business with the supplier rather than managing the supplier. Her governance discussion included relationship management, change, exit planning, escalation, and compliance.
The distinction matters because a service relationship can follow the written scope and still miss the outcome the buyer wanted. A joint review gives both parties a place to interpret the measures, address a changed condition, and decide whether the current path still serves the agreed result.
Put the outcome sheet beside the incentive draft
Before revising pricing for one supplier relationship, write the desired outcome, measure, baseline, and shared review process in plain language. Let both parties correct that page before they discuss the reward. If they cannot agree on those items, the incentive is being asked to carry an alignment problem it cannot solve.
The contract will not make the relationship effortless. It can make the agreement more honest about what both sides are trying to achieve and how they will respond when the work changes.
