[idlewords]

If "Agile" really works (and I have no opinion on whether it does), then its use should be an implementation detail that the client doesn't need to care about, but which allows the consultancy to offer much better estimates of time and cost for a given scope.

In other words, if your methodology is so great, use it to your business advantage.

[rcvassallo]

Agile is definitely an implementation detail but good clients will care about it for precisely the reason you provided.

They won't care to hear about the specific labor pains, but they will love it when you tell them your "agile" development process allows them to get prototypes quickly and provide further input as their ideas take shape.

"In other words, if your methodology is so great, use it to your business advantage."

I did and it resulted six-figures worth of contract work last year from just one client. Part of my sales pitch was to explain agile development in a way that focused on their business.

When I asked the client why they chose to work with me instead of the bigger agency, they mentioned 2 things: 1) They liked the feedback-driven development process and 2) I talked about their business instead of the technology that would go into the software.

The best part is that an agile process helps you position yourself as a trusted advisor instead of a commodity laborer. When you do that, your clients get better results and provide repeat and/or referral business.

TLDR: The best clients do care if you're agile about their business needs.

[kasey_junk]

If agile really works (I do have an opinion but not an orthodoxy) one of its main premises is that one of the failings of traditional project management techniques is isolating the client from the development process. This "implementation detail" is the central premise and the client should be exceptionally motivated to care about it.

One of the central weaknesses of agile in my opinion is it is unclear the best way to bill it and therefore it can often be a business disadvantage.

[TimPC]

The real advantage of Agile though is to allow a flexible and reprioritized scope because of the failings of Waterfall. The main benefit is the ability to respond flexibly and avoid building "the wrong thing". Fix scope and estimate time and cost is clearly a problem that Waterfall solves better, it's just generally a bad approach to producing valuable software since it means pointless features are built, while useful things aren't added.