When a non-technical client requests software development services from a consulting shop, and they agree about the development of a certain application (the what,) is it a good idea to discuss the practices that will be followed in order to get the job done (the how,) or would mentioning the practices be irrelevant to a client who is not technical and has no expertise with software development?
For example, a certain consulting shop may choose to build the client's application following XP practices because from experience, developers at that shop have found that they finish developing features faster and with higher quality when following the XP process.
Is it relevant at all to mention these practices to a client who knows nothing about XP without being asked first? Or is it initially better to provide the client with the minimum amount of information needed, such as the number of developers, hourly-rate, estimated development time, etc...?
If the client was curious to know how the application is being developed, the details can always be provided when asked, but the reason I am asking the questions above is because often, mentioning these details too early can muddy the water and give the client authority over practices they do not have the qualifications to decide on.
For example, mentioning radical practices such as test-driven development and pair-programming sometimes stirs up discomfort and confusion about how these practices work due to lack of experience with them (like the classical misconception that the two practices aforementioned reduce productivity instead of increasing it.) The client then may demand removal/adjustment of the practices when in fact, the main reason the practices are followed is to serve the client in the most professional and productive way possible. That leads to the often frowned upon micro-management of practices, thus hindering creativity and productivity.
Without micro-management on the other hand, when the client is told he is sold the work hours of four developers with a certain estimate for application release, the developers can choose any way they desire to accomplish the client's goals. If they decide that it's more productive to pair on certain tasks and always write tests first, that is their decision. Trusting them with that freedom can often result in higher creativity and productivity in the long run, freeing the client from focusing on practices (the how) in order to focus on coming up with the best product to build (the what.)
After all, when I request from a company to build me a house, I do not want to be bored with all the technical details about how it is going to be built. I just want a quality home built by a certain date. If I get interested enough to know about the practices followed, I will ask, but I do not want to waste my time hearing about them before the beginning of the project if they do not affect my involvement with it.
In either case, clients still need to hear about the practices that directly affect their involvement with the development of the product. For example, stand-up meetings and iterative planning are two XP practices that need to be agreed on with the client before beginning the project in order to get the client's commitment and effectively apply them.
How would you answer the questions asked above? Are you in favor of having a black box or an invisible box around the professional practices that do not directly affect the client? Keep in mind that in either case, the box is transparent. It's just that with the black box, the client has to look closely to see them (like looking at tinted glass) whereas with the invisible box, all the details are being shown even before asking for them.