Agency operations workshop / 5 MIN READ
Agree how the client and agency will work together
Make communication, review and escalation expectations practical at the start.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources checked 2026-11-06
A client relationship runs more smoothly when both teams know where requests belong, how decisions are made and when a response is genuinely urgent. Working arrangements should reflect real constraints rather than an idealized promise of constant availability.
What you will leave with: A short operating agreement for communication, reviews and escalation.
Use this when
- A new client engagement is starting.
- A continuing account has recurring confusion about response and approval expectations.
This does not replace contractual terms or authorize a change in service scope, legal obligations or spending authority.
Discuss recurring situations together
Atlassian’s working-agreements guidance makes collaboration expectations explicit and revisitable. Use actual situations from the engagement to choose what needs agreement.
Discuss where requests arrive, how review comments are consolidated, who communicates with suppliers and how urgent issues are identified. Include both client and agency constraints, such as working hours and required internal approvals. Avoid promising immediate responses through every channel. A realistic agreement is more useful than a polished service statement that nobody can consistently honor.
Choose a clear route for each kind of work
Define the normal channel for requests, the location of the current plan and the place where formal decisions are recorded. Specify what information makes a request actionable and who acknowledges it. Keep the process light enough for routine use.
Distinguish discussion from an authorized instruction. A suggestion in a workshop may need scope review before work starts. Explain how review feedback reaches the agency and who resolves conflicting client comments. Do not make every participant an independent approver by default. The arrangement should reduce ambiguity while preserving the client’s legitimate review responsibilities.
Agree urgency and escalation in concrete terms
Describe the kinds of issue that need immediate attention, such as a live material error or an imminent missed external commitment. Set an appropriate route and backup for those situations. Ordinary preference changes should not automatically become emergencies.
State what happens when a request arrives outside agreed availability or depends on an absent approver. Avoid an escalation path that simply copies more senior people without saying what decision is needed. Keep safety, legal and privacy concerns on their specialist routes. The working arrangement must not weaken mandatory controls to make the relationship feel more responsive.
Review the arrangement when reality changes
After using it, ask which expectations were unclear or impractical. Revise the relevant provision with both teams rather than allowing informal exceptions to become contradictory rules. A new client lead, different scope or changed delivery model may justify another review.
Keep the current agreement easy to find and introduce it to new collaborators. Separate operational updates from contractual amendments requiring formal approval. When a misunderstanding occurs, use the agreement to clarify the next action, not to score a point against the other team. Its value comes from helping people coordinate under ordinary pressure.
Make the reasoning concrete.
A fictional agency receives feedback through email, chat and direct calls to individual designers. The client assumes all comments are instructions, while the agency waits for consolidated approval.
Ask the team to monitor every route
Opening: Treat all incoming comments as equally actionable.
Hypothesis: No client message appears to be ignored.
Risk: Conflicting instructions can produce repeated work and unclear approval.
Agree a review route
Opening: Use one consolidated feedback record with a named client decision owner.
Hypothesis: The agency can act on a coherent set of instructions.
Risk: Urgent factual issues still need a separate fast escalation route.
The teams agree how ordinary feedback becomes an authorized change and how a live error is escalated. They review the arrangement after the next approval cycle and adjust unclear steps.
Take the questions into your next brief.
Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.
Situations
Which recurring interactions create confusion?
Route
Where do requests, working discussion and formal decisions belong?
Owner
Who consolidates input and confirms instructions?
Urgency
What warrants the fast route and who covers it?
Review
What change or recurring problem will trigger an update?
Watch for the wrong conclusion.
- Promising constant availability without a workable service arrangement.
- Treating every comment as an authorized instruction.
- Using the operating agreement as a substitute for required contract changes.
Your next action
Ask the client and agency leads to describe how one review becomes an instruction. Resolve the first difference between their accounts.
Sources & scope
The workflow, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only the identified principles. No measured business results or named human reviewer are claimed.
- Atlassian Team Playbook: Working Agreements →Primary framework-publisher guidance · Supports: Working agreements make collaboration expectations explicit and can be revisited when circumstances change; the agency application is original analysis.