[HN Gopher] The "agencies of one" storm is coming ___________________________________________________________________ The "agencies of one" storm is coming Author : elazzabi_ Score : 140 points Date : 2022-03-04 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (elazzabi.com) (TXT) w3m dump (elazzabi.com) | krm01 wrote: | We aren't an agency of one (but three) and have been doing this | for many years. It's been very helpful for both companies and | ourselves. Let me explain: | | We niched down to helping B2B software teams design better | products (UI/UX). [1] | | That focus helped us get really good at tackling design problems | for these companies super effeciently. | | Companies then benefit from just plugging us into their workflow | and hit the ground running. | | In the end, we as designers get to focus on what we love doing | without the hassle of classical agencies (networking, endless | prospecting). So less time is wasted doing things we hate. | | And companies benefit from a more economic offering. | | Why more economic? | | Because we structure our business like a SaaS, our marketing is | also structured like a SaaS. Clients find us, we don't chase | them. | | The reason classic agencies are super expensive is because they | spend many unpaid hours looking for projects. Then when they have | one, the client gets charged a premium to cover for the | previously unpaid hours. | | A subscription model and treating the agency like a SaaS is more | fair IMHO for both parties. | | [1] https://fairpixels.pro | candiddevmike wrote: | A subscription model for consulting sounds like a salaried | employee with extra steps. | rubidium wrote: | Except canceling a subscription is easy (for both parties!). | Firing an employee is harder. And finance treats them | differently. | ghaff wrote: | You also have more than one client. If you really are | consulting for just one company, you probably are legally | an employee. | brtkdotse wrote: | And (at least in EU) double take-home money. Easily. | michaelt wrote: | What if my medium enterprise needs 15 minutes of translate- | this-to-french services every day, and hiring someone for 15 | minutes per day isn't really a thing? | mmaunder wrote: | This is a natural step in business growth: realizing that | recurring revenue is recurring, and then productizing formerly | bespoke work to benefit from economies of scale. | | It is when a contractor becomes a business. | al2o3cr wrote: | Re: the example - an "agency of one" having a $1m year on | $2499/mo plans means 400 client-months, or more than 33 clients a | month every month. | | "Unlimited requests" for 33 simultaneous clients seems... | unreasonable | robertlagrant wrote: | Compared to a day rate contractor, $2499/mo is very little, so | if you have bitty requests rather than a need for a full time | staff member, your "unlimited" could easily be not very much, | but still better than finding someone to do your on and off | work. | marcus_holmes wrote: | Gym model. Gyms routinely sign up more people than they have | capacity for, knowing that most people will go for the first | few weeks, and then stop. | | I bet there's a normal distribution for the work that sees new | clients creating 90% of the workload, fading down towards zero | as they age. | janci wrote: | But who pays $2500/month for nothing? | lgas wrote: | Agencies (even of one) also get economies of scale that gyms | don't. You have templates, pre-built components, domain | specific knowledge of how to handle common problems, etc. | conductr wrote: | You also have subcontractors that you can farm stuff out to | or help when volume surges. I think the "of one" is likely | not always true. | abeyer wrote: | From what I've seen, it's pretty universal for contracts | to individual freelancers like this to have an explicit | "no subs" clause or at least require prior approval of | specific subcontractors. I guess you could lie, or try to | negotiate your way out of it in some cases... but I | wouldn't count on that at scale. | lupire wrote: | Gyms have machines, and personal trainers have basic | starter programs. | sunir wrote: | I don't know how DesignJoy works. I can say that a common model | in this circumstance is the person is a salesperson who | outsources the rest of the operation to a network of | subcontractors, including project management, AE, and | fulfillment. | | Sometimes this is called a "network agency". | gingericha wrote: | I dug a bit deeper. Looks like it's truly a "agency of one" | in that he doesn't outsource his work. Rather, the customers | are given access to a queue (that they can prioritize) where | only one item in the queue is actively being worked on at a | time. | Taylor_OD wrote: | Right. But you likely end up with most of these clients being | pretty dormant and a few, or the new ones, being needy. If any | given one is too needy then you cut them. | | In practice many companies have a similar model they just dont | say it. I mean technically as a dev I'm going to make as many | revisions to my code as is requested and I get paid the same | amount at the end of the month. My team just knows if its 500 | revisions then there are probably some issues with the asks or | my code. | moralestapia wrote: | I still find it very hard to believe that this guy is handling | everything by himself. | brimble wrote: | Sole employee![0] | | [0] (but sub-contracts work out extensively) | | Just about guarantee that's the situation. | zelon88 wrote: | Well maybe if MSPs didn't do such a bad job and leave so much low | hanging fruit. | tptacek wrote: | My big pushback on this is not that it's hard to be an "agency of | one" (it's easier than you think), but that it's hard to _stay_ | an "agency of one" --- the business model work this article | talks overlaps almost perfectly with the work it takes to scale a | consultancy to multiple people delivering. | webmaven wrote: | This isn't as new as it seems. Agencies (including "agencies of | one") have been doing work on retainer for as long as there have | been agencies. | | The retainer model may be more common among legal firms than | design agencies (largely because clients imagine their design | needs are occasional or episodic rather than continuous), but it | has absolutely been used for design. | ypeterholmes wrote: | Exactly. And I'd add one note- many businesses can't afford a | "subscription" for thousands of dollars a month. | WJW wrote: | How do these businesses afford employees then? Surely a | normal employer-employee relationship is even more | subscription-like than a freelancer on retainer. | oldstrangers wrote: | This is pretty funny to me. I just built https://gloutir.com, | essentially a micro agency that's just ... myself. | | I realized working for large agencies that I'm already the person | doing all the work, so why not get compensated accordingly? It | was also amazing to me the amount of outsourcing that happens at | an agency, most of them really don't have inhouse designers or | developers (regardless of their massive size). | lancesells wrote: | Beautiful site but I think you're kind of only talking about | yourself. I would address the problem points companies have and | talk about them. In a sense your are speaking in abstracts. | oldstrangers wrote: | Fair points. I think the main pain points companies have, | that I touch on, are turnaround times, cost and creative | ability. I could lay out those ideas in an easier to consume | format instead of just large paragraphs though. | fartcannon wrote: | This is how a great number of infrastructure P3 projects are | run. One professional engineer employed by a massive consulting | firm signing off on the work of 50 low paid overseas designers. | That one engineer will have 4 or 5 bosses and be responsible | for as many huge infrastructure projects. | | The leaders of these companies are well connected charismatic | used car salesmen. | soared wrote: | Stunning website! All you need is a few client logos/previous | projects and I'd be convinced. | bendbro wrote: | That website is beautiful | manmal wrote: | The copy is mostly talking about themselves though, and | little about how they are helping the customer achieve X. | oldstrangers wrote: | Not a copy writer, but wanted to highlight the shortcomings | of traditional agencies. Also felt compelled to oversell | what we do / who we are since I can't showcase most of my | portfolio that's tied to existing agencies. | | Something to consider though. | wooque wrote: | I like the aesthetics | hardwaresofton wrote: | Productized Consulting, for the SaaS age. | stuaxo wrote: | This is what is called contracting in the UK, as far as I can | tell ? | mathgladiator wrote: | I'm very happy about this. | | I'm building a company as a solo engineer right now, and I've | been thinking a lot about growth in terms of firepower. I've | decided to not anyone for a long time. | | Part of the reason is that I hate being an employee, and I don't | want to subject anyone to that: https://www.adama- | platform.com/company.html | | Instead, my bias is to find free people that enjoy their craft, | and then use a waterfall model for various efforts. | groby_b wrote: | Uhuh. Except, we call that a retainer? It's not new at all? | | Of course, this is better - there will be of course no sub- | contracting. No siree, won't be seen. And nobody is ever going to | slow-roll "unlimited". Or phone it in. Not at all. And of course | there will be no client ever who would abuse an "unlimited" | contract and have you work 120 hours a week. | | Oh. Wait. Yes, there will, and it'll be just like it's now. There | will be people you build a trust relationship with, and they'll | get the juicier deals - _because you trust them_. They 'll scale | up, because they'll be asked more. And presto one-two-three you | have an agency. | | Yes, it's a slightly different billing model. And it's more | conducive to a "stardom"/"free agent" approach, but that also | means it will only work for people at the top of the game - who | don't want to scale out and make more money that way. | moonbug wrote: | sounds terrible. | reincarnate0x14 wrote: | Differing industries are often experience these cyclical | inversions at different rates. At the moment there has been a | trend in industrial power away from single huge projects and more | towards managed services models, and I suspect a lot of that is | down to accountants finding fun new ways to capitalize the costs. | | As someone who helped launched such a service, it's nice for me | because the revenue is reliable, but I suspect both our services | and contractor rates are much, much higher than what this is | looking at. | | It's possibly more in line with the "small art design" markets in | which you can hire a graphic designer or musician or whatever out | of the global south that is doing solid work for a fraction of | what a more developed country agency would charge. Which is great | for everyone except the existing freelancers in said developed | countries. | krasotkin wrote: | I romanticize doing something like this, but my lack of | experience in sales and lack of knowledge in general business | dealings prevent me from going at it alone. I'd like a partner | who complements my skill set. Reiterating another commenter's | point, being on call 24/7 doesn't sound fun either. | jollybean wrote: | Actually no. No company wants to deal with 100's of different | agencies with different terms, and it's unlikely that someone out | there is doing 'revisions etc' i.e. actual work and making $1M, | there's some pricing misinformation or someone is selling some | kind of service. Certainly it's not a template. | | Companies offering SaaS where there's very low friction - yes. | But agencies like that, unlikely. | | I'm already in this boat the last thing we want is every single | person to be on different terms. | karaterobot wrote: | If DesignJoy is making $1M a year selling $2500-$3000 month | subscriptions, and there's only one person doing the work, then | he's got around 30 clients for whom he is doing "unlimited" work | every month. | | As a contractor, I once had 9 ongoing projects for about 2 weeks, | and that was an insane amount of work and context juggling. | Handling 30 _active_ clients for a year, let alone a career, | seems impossible. | | So either the clients aren't asking for much (which is most | likely) or I'm missing something. I assume many bigger companies | would happily replace a staff member, or a staff member's | valuable time, with a ~30k/year contractor. Critically, these | companies wouldn't feel the need to "get their money's worth" by | keeping the guy busy every day. However, the smaller companies | most freelancers see as their bread and butter are more cost | sensitive, and will nickel and dime you as much as possible. | | Are there enough big, monied companies to constitute a "storm", | which I take to mean a shift in the business model for | freelancers and boutique contractors? I dunno about that. I'd | guess no, offhand. | | Seems like DesignJoy has create a neat niche, which is awesome | for him! I don't think it scales to the "disruption" level as | this article implies. | mejutoco wrote: | IMO some people have an unhealthy need to find the best deal | possible (usually the cheapest), even if it takes so much time | it is not worth it. | | The same way that some public contractors offer the cheapest | rate knowing that it will be inflated, or that low-cost | airlines sells you the cheapest ticket, later adding extra | luggage, food, and healthy credit card processing fees, a | strategy is to give these people what they want. | | I could believe after they have their unlimited service, a lot | of the customers do not make use of it. In many of these cases | the decision making at the client might even be the bottleneck. | paulcole wrote: | Until proven otherwise I'll assume any agency-of-1 will end up | outsourcing to contractors at some point. | davidgh wrote: | You mean, become a typical agency? | julienfr112 wrote: | And goodby quality | datavirtue wrote: | Winner! | jonwinstanley wrote: | Which, if done right could be very profitable | autokad wrote: | if you look at the security space, this is exactly what | cloudtrike is, or at least is aiming for. They want to do your | SIRT, your red teaming, your malware collection, etc etc. | | Then you got microsoft with teams, office, and such trying to | be the agency of one for your collaboration needs. | | Google is fighting to be your one stop shop for advertising. | | I do agree we are moving towards agencies of one. | majormajor wrote: | The "one" in the article means _one person_ doing all the | work. Not a big org providing SAAS or such like MS /Google. | | I don't think it would work for something like software, | where the last 10% takes 90% of the time. Maybe you could do | it for prototypes, but do any companies really need a | "constant prototype" contractor? | autokad wrote: | One person doing all the work and needs of a project does | happen, but its rare. I would just be cheaper to hire | someone full time, so this usually happens in specialty | software where its hard to keep hiring head count to do it. | | > I don't think it would work for something like software | | Except that it happens all the time. its fairly prevalent. | | > Maybe you could do it for prototypes, but do any | companies really need a "constant prototype" | | Absolutely. | mikewarot wrote: | Elsewhere on the web, he explains his business model: | | "There seems to be some correlation between size of the company | and the quantity of their needs. The smaller they are, the more | needs they have. The opposite is true as well. So yes, many | clients pay $2k+ per month and may use the service once or | twice a month, equating to under an hour's worth of work." | | Source: https://www.indiehackers.com/post/designjoy- | crosses-70k-mrr-... | CPLX wrote: | > This is just freelancing! you might say, but it's not. | | Yes it is. | klyrs wrote: | > Agencies of one say things like: Get | unlimited requests and revisions, source files included, for | $2,499/m. | | Okay, you can say that, but how does a single person satisfy | "unlimited" requests and revisions? Sounds like a recipe for | rapid burnout and dissatisfied customers, to me. | macinjosh wrote: | The same way Verizon promises unlimited data. Most customers | don't maximize usage and in the fine print there is probably | some hard limit or exceptions for what they feel is abuse. | burkaman wrote: | > Is it really unlimited requests? | | > Yes! Once subscribed, you're able to add as many design | requests to your queue as you'd like, and they will delivered | one by one. | | You can make as many requests as you want, but it doesn't seem | like he makes any guarantee as to how fast he'll get to them. | | > Because each and every request is different, it's hard to | guarantee anything here but my general rule of thumb for a | typical request is two business days. | | - https://intercom.help/designjoy/en/articles/5509274-how- | fast... | jsdwarf wrote: | His offer seems like those 19,99$ /month discount gyms that | are open 24/7. you can access them all the time but have no | guarantee to complete your workout in 1hr due to the large | amount of people. Not sure if that works for deadline driven | businesses. | ghaff wrote: | I would not use the term "unlimited" but, depending upon the | nature of the work, it can be perfectly reasonable to have a | subscription without an explicit cap. When I was an industry | analyst at a very small firm we worked on that basis (with | adders for certain discrete projects--consulting days, posting | rights for research, etc.). It was never a problem. Frankly, | getting big companies to get their acts together enough to | actually do inquiries and things like that so they got value | from us was a bigger issue than them being a constant time | suck. | jsmith99 wrote: | They can always rate limit by taking a day or two to respond to | each email or revision request. That creates a limit of perhaps | 20 interactions a month. | brtkdotse wrote: | In the same way a buffet satisfies "unlimited" fill-ups. | datavirtue wrote: | You can outsource all of the work to Ukraine or India. | smilespray wrote: | I've worked with several highly competent Ukranian devs, but | I think most of them have other things on their mind right | now. | munificent wrote: | Personally, I wouldn't frame things this way, but one way to | manage that sustainably is to observe that you can offer | limited _requests_ without promising any particular _response | time_. | | As the number of requests increases, the latency of a response | will go up. If a client needs a response in order to evaluate | it for the next request, this will naturally lower the total | number of requests. Also, clients will at some point realize | they get where they want faster (i.e. overall throughput) if | they are more parsimonious with their requests. | | In practice, healthy relationships and good faith clients and | agents are probably sufficient for this to work out. | tedmcory77 wrote: | The way many handle this is you get X requests a day for new | things, revisions, etc. | klyrs wrote: | Don't call that unlimited. It's limited. | kfarr wrote: | Agreed it sounds more like 30 updates per month :) | tut-urut-utut wrote: | If big corps can call limited things unlimited, why now | "agencies of one"? | | I mean, it is unlimited, within a reasonable use, and the | agency is the one to define what is reasonable use and what | is not. | klyrs wrote: | It's dishonest. Don't be dishonest just because you saw | somebody else do it first. | adrianN wrote: | Unless it's illegal, the incentives probably force you to | do such things if you want to be competitive. Free | markets suck for such things. | klyrs wrote: | My personal integrity is a higher bar than mere legality. | I realize that I may be in a minority with that attitude | in startup culture. | justin66 wrote: | Big corps are better at fielding lawsuits, it turns out. | bruce343434 wrote: | I've never seen claims like that without asterisks and | small print saying "up to a reasonable amount" where | "reasonable" is completely undefined. | [deleted] | outside1234 wrote: | This sounds like the "gym memberships" of consulting - where you | pay for the ability to use a thing on the expectation that people | don't use it often. | davidw wrote: | IDK, in the US, trying to manage your health care as an 'agency | of one' is probably going to keep a lot of people away. | kube-system wrote: | I bought an EPO directly from the local integrated health | system for a couple of years and it was a great experience. It | was inexpensive and I never had an issue with my in-network | claims. Although, I had care on the other side of the country | once with it, and they looked at my insurance card like I was a | space alien. It took them over a year to figure out what to do | about that claim, but eventually they worked it out between | themselves. | | I would totally do it again -- it's about 1/2 the price of my | current BCBS PPO for similar benefits. There's a lot more | choice in healthcare when you're not part of a group plan that | chooses your options for you. | abeyer wrote: | Maybe in some states, but certainly not all. ACA health plans | are quite easy to manage for an individual in my experience. I | spent maybe an hour or two a year of paperwork on health | insurance when I was consulting. | | (Now that doesn't get rid of the nightmare you're likely to | face if you have to _use_ the insurance for anything major... | but that's just as true on an employer health plan, too.) | celestialcheese wrote: | The worst part of the exchanges is the lack of access to PPO | plans, at least here in Washington. HMO/EPO plans are trash | if you live outside of major cities. | andreliem wrote: | This has been around for a while, but perhaps not packaged and | marketed in this way. Probably quite effective when it comes to | clients needing basic design needs. I don't see this working too | well for actual building of software products, where it's not | about the number of revisions that matter but more about spending | time on the client + service provider relationship and building | the right thing. | hammock wrote: | This is a weird take because in the agency world (agencies of | many, if you will), the long-term trend has been in the complete | opposite direction: a retainer model is increasingly being | replaced by project-based and time-and-materials work. | jdrc wrote: | storm? more like spring. People working on their own terms | leroman wrote: | The "subscription" model seems unlikely, as today companies do | their work mostly "Just In Time" or in the industry lingo - Agile | style. To a contractor this means the requirements when he goes | into a project are not clean, so he can't reasonably price the | project. | | The hourly rate is in place so that in this relationship, work | means more time for the consultant and more resources for the | company wanting said work, this is the way it should be and keeps | everyone on the same side. | | If you mean, like others mentioned here, a model where a company | pre-pays for some amount of hours this contractor promises to | allocate for this company (at minimum) - this is called the | "retainer model", this is fine and is a good idea for small tasks | and not a big ongoing project | tptacek wrote: | Time and materials billing does the opposite of keeping | everyone on the same side --- most especially hourly, which is | just about the worst way you can structure a contracting | relationship. | | My on this topic, ad nauseam, for over a decade on this forum: | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... | | Particularly this fella right here: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103417 | leroman wrote: | Coming from more than 5 years consulting, my conclusion is | that hourly rate (a high rate) helped our motivations | aligned. | | Context is important here, the work I was doing is helping | companies with big complex software projects. | | Did you try something else? do you have different experience? | tptacek wrote: | Our projects ranged from 2-person 2-week web app | assessments to multi-quarter assessments of entire | operating systems, from individual projects to long-term | staff augmentation, and everything in between. I'm | confident that hourly rates do not in fact align your | motivations with your clients. | datavirtue wrote: | I agree. The vast majority of contractors are burning | through days like an FTE (I know of a guy who used to | sleep, a lot...I just left him alone) for double FTE pay. | My understanding is that this works because investors | (walstreet and VC) cringe at employee headcount. | Contractors do not fall under that count. There are other | aspects such that GE can say they only laid off 50 | employees in a press release...forgetting to mention the | 4000 contractors they just sent packing. | tptacek wrote: | I'm a broken record on this as well: a huge part of the | value of a contractor is that you can retain them for the | duration of your project, sever them, and bring them back | whenever you need them. You don't get anything resembling | that kind of flexibility from an FTE, and that | flexibility has value, enormous value; high-end | consultants charge dearly for it, and you should too. | It's part of the expected value of the transaction. | UncleOxidant wrote: | I read the article and can't tell if he thinks this is a problem | or what? Usually when you have "storm coming" as he does in the | title the implication is that it's bad. But reading the text | and... I'm not really sure what the problem is and I'm not even | sure that it's a new phenomenon. The article doesn't seem all | that useful. | claudiulodro wrote: | As a developer, I think the closest parallel or most common way | people do this is to be "the web guy" for a few businesses: part- | time, ongoing small development and maintenance. I've worked with | many people like that through the course of my work. It seems | like a chill life, but I don't know that I've seen anyone scale | it to more than what the average freelancer gets. | mpfundstein wrote: | nowadays its "the data guy" | | which is me | noelwelsh wrote: | Productized consulting works when you can turn your offering into | something that is standardized and hence repeatable. This works | for some consulting markets, but not all. If you're going to make | websites for restaurants, you can do this. If you're going to | make high performance back ends, probably not. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Storm? | | I know several people who charge for an initial development fee | and then offer recurring monthly packages which handle new | development, updates, and maintenance on a retainer. They've been | doing this for years. The best part about this scenario is that | since the payment is already baked in, there's really no | incentive for the "agency" to clamor for more unnecessary work. | They are free to be advocates for what's best for the client | since they will usually end up making more money by using the | extra time to bring on yet another client than they would by | servicing this existing client with more custom work. | thenerdhead wrote: | This is already a pretty popular concept on Fiverr, YouTube, and | other content-based platforms. Basically the TL;DR is the agency | is a "face" which is a personality, etc, and the operations are | run by a whole team and outsourced for pennies on the dollar. | It's smart. | codingdave wrote: | Freelancers have been kept on retainer for quite a long time. It | sounds like the author just wasn't familiar with that business | model. Which is fine - I don't want to be harsh on someone just | because they had a knowledge gap - we all do. But there is more | to being on retainer than just a monthly fee. | | There still is often hourly estimation because the retainer | frequently will be for a set number of hours, with additional | hourly rates if you go over that limit. (Freelancers who offer | unlimited hours get in trouble fast.) Companies therefore still | triage their needs, to try to get as much done in the set hours | without incurring too many additional hours. | solitus wrote: | Yeah I'm not sure I would want to offer unlimited hours to | multiple clients. | ljm wrote: | I would consider it but it would have to be very repeatable | and well defined and at that point, why haven't I automated | it? The posited Agency of One sounds pretty much like a | beginning-stage SaaS while you're doing things on pen and | paper or a spreadsheet until you've figured out what you need | to actually build. | | Otherwise, that seems like a fast track ticket to burning | out. Retainer model and selling bundles of hours is going to | keep your client incentivised to not waste your time. | tptacek wrote: | Retainer arrangements and subscriptions look similar but are | not the same thing. A retainer is a bucket of hours sold gym- | style, use-it-or-lose-it. Within those hours, the customer has | a lot of flexibility with tasking their contractor (what the | scope of work is, and what the scheduling and staffing are). | | Subscriptions are distinctive because they include terms based | on defined outcomes. You're getting X done every month (X may | also be use-it-or-lose-it, but it isn't ever Y or Z), and the | vendor (mostly) decides how best to accomplish X. | | Retainer agreements tend to have bespoke terms; if 5 clients | retain you, chances are you have at least 3 different sets of | terms and 3 different scopes of work. Part of the definition of | a subscription, again, is that it's the same work for everyone | you sell it to. | | Neither retainer freelancers nor subscription services should | be charging hourly; hourly is a consulting anti-pattern. | pbowyer wrote: | > Neither retainer freelancers nor subscription services | should be charging hourly; hourly is a consulting anti- | pattern. | | It's easy to say that but hard to avoid hourly. I say that as | somebody who's read your threads and those of patio11 for a | decade. I've run my 1-person business [1] for over 15 years | and whilst I would like to break away to value pricing I'll | still take money-for-time over fixed priced bids any time. | | Why? Risk transfer. With fixed bid the risk and management of | scope creep is on me. With hourly, on the client. And not | having to micro-detail everything in the spec before it gets | signed off to make sure no time sinks pop up is nice. | | I don't know if the breakthrough I've never managed to escape | time based billing is mindset, target audience, offering or | location (UK), but I haven't made it happen. | | 1. https://www.mapledesign.co.uk | tptacek wrote: | People have been saying this here for 10 years, and, | respectfully, no, it's not hard to escape this trap. Every | project we bid at Matasano had the same terms: a whole- | project cost estimate (broken out in units of days or | weeks, allocated to milestones), and a clause in the | proposal and the SOW that said overages were billed pro- | rata additional days. Customers want to see a good-faith | estimate of the project cost --- every customer for every | service wants that --- but in my experience with _hundreds_ | of clients, not one has ever pushed back on T &M contract | structure. | | Tell your clients what the project is going to cost, and | then work hard not to blow past that estimate. If you go | over and it's your fault, eat the overage. If you go over | because the customer wasn't ready for 3 days at the | calendar start of the project, bill them the overage. | | Unless your clients are whackjobs, nobody is ever going to | take recourse to the contract terms and the law department. | Just engaging the lawyers at all will create costs that | swamp the overage dollars. Your customers true recourse is | simply never doing business with you again. | | If you want to do straight, metered T&M, that's fine. I | think it's suboptimal but cromulent. But even then, there's | still no reason to ever give your clients an hourly unit of | work. Just bill days. | pbowyer wrote: | Interesting, for larger contracts the way you bid at | Matasano is how mine come out. Scoping engagement, then | costs broken down as a guide. | | My reading though is what you were doing was still time | and materials. Sure you're billing in units of days or | weeks, but as I understand it the underlying principle is | the same as hourly billing: track time and charge for it. | It's not linked to the value of outcomes, it's not eating | up unknowns that come out and each has to be negotiated | with the client ("We didn't expect $EvilCorp we're | integrating with would take 2 weeks to answer every | query"). | | In another comment you say "Time and materials billing | does the opposite of keeping everyone on the same side". | Can you expand on how you kept people on the same side at | Matasano? | | > and a clause in the proposal and the SOW that said | overages were billed pro-rata additional days. | | Did you have an approach that stopped each one becoming a | lengthening negotiation with the client over what were | true overages and which you should eat? I have had plenty | of brusing conversations doing this and in my experience | the client's expectation of what's "My fault" can be | unreasonably wide, which is one reason for looking to | other ways to price. | tptacek wrote: | It absolutely was T&M, but that's not how it's _sold_. If | you read the proposal the way ordinary humans read a | proposal, skimming to the price tag, what you 'd see is a | price breakdown for the whole project, complete with a | "total cost" as the bottom row. This isn't some magical | thing Matasano came up with; my Matasano partners were | from @stake, and the @stake people were previously | Cambridge Technology Partners people, and those people | were taught how to structure proposals by their forebears | before them. Presumably Paul Revere was involved at some | point. | | We never had any negotiations about overages. If we were | going to bill an overage, we'd tell the client, and if | they told us "no", the project would presumably have | stopped there. It didn't come up. | pbowyer wrote: | Aha thank you! Much for me to think about. | datavirtue wrote: | Yeah, its stated as hourly but the real deal is 8-8-8-8-8 | across the board...and the manager stamping your | timesheet loves this. For some reason lawyers are stuck | with tracking every 15 minutes. | tptacek wrote: | I think if you have a timesheet, something has gone | wrong. | datavirtue wrote: | I often have two. But don't feel sorry for me. My salary | and benefits tromp the FTEs. | bathtub365 wrote: | Why is that? | tptacek wrote: | Because when you're billing for a day, you either worked | on a day or you didn't. Not working on a day you're | ostensibly billing for is anomalous enough that you're | going to bring it up yourself with your client. For daily | billing projects, timesheets are _mostly_ just not a | thing. We had a couple customers that used them, but they | were staff-aug projects. | mariogintili wrote: | this isn't new - how did this made it to the homepage? Maybe this | guy coordinated a bunch of buddies to upvote | 4ndrewl wrote: | People have been doing this for years. Main problem is that one | person can't scale and is _always_ on call (goodbye holidays, | weekends etc). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-04 23:00 UTC)