- Sheridan, Wyoming, US
- [email protected]
- Call Us Anytime+123 (4567) 890
- Email Us[email protected]
- Opening HourMon - Sat 8:00 - 6:30, Sunday - CLOSED
Get latest update for our trusted applications
Engagement Models
Four ways to start, one thing that never changes.
Whichever commercial structure you choose, the value model comes first and value gets reported monthly. The models differ in how risk is shared and how much certainty you need up front — not in whether we are measured.
2 wks
to startValue assessment, fixed fee
30%
fee at riskAvailable on outcome-linked work
30%
cost advantageVersus comparable onshore delivery
The right structure depends on who can actually influence the number.
Outcome-based pricing sounds obviously superior and is frequently the wrong choice. It only works when the metric is clean, the baseline is trustworthy and we have enough influence over the levers to be fairly judged. Where adoption depends on a reorganisation we do not control, putting our fee at risk against it is theatre rather than accountability.
So we recommend the structure that fits the situation, and we say so even when a different one would earn us more. Fixed scope where certainty matters. Outcome-linked where the metric is genuinely ours to move. An embedded team where change is continuous and building your internal capability is part of the point.
What does not vary is the measurement. Every model reports value monthly against a baseline your finance team set.
Structures, priced transparently.
Value Assessment
The way almost every relationship starts. Two weeks with your finance and operations leaders producing a written value model, a ranked opportunity list and a recommendation — including the recommendation to stop. The fee is credited in full against any engagement that follows. Best for: first engagement, unclear priorities, board needs evidence.
Fixed-Scope Delivery
Defined deliverables at a fixed price with an agreed change process. Appropriate where scope is genuinely clear or where the business outcome depends heavily on decisions outside our control. Best for: clear scope, procurement requires certainty, platform builds.
Outcome-Linked
A defined portion of our fee depends on the agreed metric moving. This requires a clean baseline, a metric we both trust and a client willing to give us the access and decision speed to influence it. Best for: measurable operations, shared appetite for accountability.
Embedded Team
A dedicated squad working inside your organisation to your priorities, under our delivery standards and with our senior review. Best for: continuous change, internal capability building, multi-year roadmap.
Why our rates are lower and our people are not junior.
A fair question when a firm claims a 30% cost advantage. The answer is geography and structure rather than seniority.
Our engineering centre is in Kathmandu, where our senior engineers are paid extremely well relative to their market and where our operating cost is a fraction of London, Amsterdam or New York. Client partnership sits close to your time zone in the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Gulf.
We do not run a pyramid. There is no bench of graduates billed as consultants under one partner's name, because that structure produces exactly the technical-outcome delivery we built this firm to avoid. The senior engineer who scopes your work is the one who builds it.
The result is roughly 30% below comparable onshore cost with, in our view, better continuity — the same named people from assessment through to the value report.
- 01No graduate bench billed at consultant rates
- 02No account managers between you and the engineers
- 03No licence resale margin dressed up as advice
- 04No partner-programme commission hidden in architecture
- 05Assessment fees credited rather than pocketed
- 06Fee at risk where the metric is genuinely ours to move
30%
Below onshore costFor comparable seniority
30%
Fee at risk availableOn outcome-linked engagements
99%
Client retentionAcross all four models
What procurement teams ask.
- 01. Can we start with a paid pilot instead of an assessment?You can, and we will usually argue against it. A pilot without an agreed baseline produces an interesting demonstration and no evidence. Two weeks establishing the measurement makes the pilot worth funding.
- 02. What is in the change control process?Scope changes are priced and approved in writing, and we distinguish between a change of requirement and a discovery that was our responsibility to anticipate. The second kind is not billed.
- 03. Will you sign our standard master services agreement?Usually, subject to review. The clauses we push back on are unlimited liability, ownership terms that conflict with your keeping the code, and provisions that would prevent us reporting honestly.
- 04. How do payment terms work?Monthly against progress for delivery work, monthly in advance for retainers, and at-risk components settled at the review date defined in the value model. We do not hold code or credentials against payment.
Where to go next.
Start with the two-week assessment. Decide the rest afterwards.
The commercial structure should follow the value model rather than precede it. Once we both know what is achievable, choosing how to work together is straightforward.
