[ Four ways to work with us, and when each is right ]
Fixed price, dedicated team, time and materials, or a retainer. The right one depends on how well the scope is known — choosing wrong is expensive in a way that is hard to undo later.
Fixed price, dedicated team, time and materials, or a retainer. The right one depends on how well the scope is known — choosing wrong is expensive in a way that is hard to undo later.
Tell us about the work and we will suggest a modelA defined outcome for a defined amount. Best when what you want is genuinely settled and unlikely to move.
Developers reserved for you monthly. Best when there is a continuing roadmap rather than a single deliverable.
Pay for the work done. Best for exploratory projects — fixing a price on uncertainty just means you pay for the risk.
Monthly cover for maintenance, support and small changes on something already live.
A defined scope for a defined price, billed against milestones. Right when the requirement is settled and changes are unlikely.
Developers reserved for you monthly, working your board and your priorities. Right when there is a continuing roadmap.
Pay for hours worked where scope will genuinely move, or a monthly retainer for maintenance and small changes on live software.
This determines the model more than budget does. Certain scope suits fixed price; genuinely uncertain scope does not.
Fixed price puts delivery risk on us. A dedicated team puts prioritisation on you. Both work; they are different arrangements.
Payment schedule, milestones or monthly billing, notice period, IP transfer and confidentiality, written plainly.
For dedicated teams, a paid two-week trial before commitment. Both sides find out how the other works while it is cheap.
Output against expectation, spend against budget, and whether the model still fits. Models can change mid-relationship.
Projects that begin fixed price often become retainers. That is a normal progression, not a failure of the original arrangement.
The engagement model is a decision about who carries which risk, and it should follow how well the scope is known. Fixed price transfers delivery risk to us, which is right when the requirement is settled — and expensive for you when it is not, because uncertainty gets priced into the number.
A dedicated team or time and materials keeps prioritisation with you and costs less when scope will move. The mistake we see most often is a client insisting on a fixed price for genuinely exploratory work, then paying both the risk premium and the change requests.
Settled scope, fixed price. Moving scope, time and materials or a dedicated team. Getting this backwards costs money either way.
A paid two-week trial on a dedicated team tells both sides more than any reference call. It is the cheapest due diligence available.
A fixed-price build becoming a retainer is the normal shape of a good relationship, not a sign the first arrangement failed.
Clients increasingly want capacity and control rather than a delivered specification, which suits software that keeps evolving after launch.
Thirty-day notice and monthly scaling are now expected, replacing the annual contracts that used to be normal in offshore development.
It works where the outcome is measurable and largely in our control. For development it rarely is, and we are sceptical of anyone claiming otherwise.
For well-defined work, fixed price usually is, because there is no risk premium to pay. For anything exploratory, time and materials is almost always cheaper — a fixed price on uncertain scope includes a buffer you pay whether or not it is needed, plus change requests on top.
Let’s talk about your engagement models project. No obligation, just a conversation.
Next service
Project Communication