How to Move from Billing Per Hour to Project-Based Billing

Jul 21, 2022

Author

James D. Wilton

Managing Partner

Read Bio

Loved seeing this post on “Saying goodbye to the billable hour” in legal firms from Alice Stephenson. It is certainly true, in my opinion, that the billable hour pricing that lawyers (and many professional services firms, actually) follow is full of friction. And, for clarity, it’s the strict itemization and charging for every unit that causes the friction, rather than the underlying mechanics.


One particular past legal bill I received sticks in my mind. The price felt ok to me at a first glance. But then I opened the invoice and saw 15-minute bills for people I spoke to for maybe 5 minutes, tasks that I felt should have taken an hour that took over 2 etc. etc. In other words, the price structure – the justification for the total price – had made turned me against a price point that I otherwise would have felt ok with!


In professional services, we are in a difficult position where we have high costs, and that costs are driven by labor hours. It makes complete sense, in principle, to align our monetization with that unit of cost. But here’s the rub: customers don’t care about how long your worked – they care about the output.


The answer is to move to more of a project-based billing system, where you charge a fixed fee for a certain output, regardless of how long it takes. There are big benefits here, not least because we avoid the feeling of “nickel and diming” for time. In our experience, there are a few things that you need to do this well:


Understand your costs: Make no mistake – even when you move to project-based billing, you are still monetizing time and resources – just not explicitly. And, above all else, you need to cover your costs, which means need you need to understand them intimately. For all your “levels” of resource, based on their salary, benefits, expenses, and average utilization, figure out the cost of a billable hour and go from there.


Create a workload buildup for each typical “project”: For each typical project, based on the expected duration, hours per week of people from different levels etc., you should understand the number of hours of work required. Plan for the usual case here, not the “best” case. Needless to say, this will need to start with an analysis of previous projects.


Set a markup based on value AND unpredictability: Your underlying rates in this model will likely be higher than your rates in your bill-per-hour model (don’t worry – if you do this right, your customers need never see them). That’s because in addition to marking up your costs based on the value that you add, you also need to include buffer to account for the amount of uncertainty in your workload per project. For example, project A might usually be completable with 30 hours of work, but how often could it run to 35 hours? 40 hours? Your markups should be set so that while across multiple projects on average you might work slightly longer hours than you (implicitly) bill for, you are still covered. And yes – this means you might have different markups for the same resources on different types of projects, as some projects will be more value-added than others, and some will have more predictable workload.


Build T-shirt sizing – while project-based pricing necessitates standardization, standardization doesn’t always mean “one size fits all.” If there is a lot of variation in the number of hours required for a certain project type, and that number of hours scales with characteristics of the project or client, then you can use that to build simple small\medium\large sizes to match these situations.


Set up your Tracking – workload forecast accuracy will translate directly to profits in this model, so you should strengthen this muscle. Monitor every project and refine your estimates of the number of hours required for each project type over time, and your markups based on the change in uncertainty.


Ditch the itemized billing – hourly billing necessitates complete transparency on hours works and hourly rates. The benefit of the project-based model is that it requires neither. You might give a customer an idea of who’s working on the project and the rough hours/days per week, but the overall price should be blended, and never broken out by individual resources. Is this going to be an easy transition? Probably not. You will need to build the discipline around this and have clear messaging. But if you can do it, you will have shifted the conversation from paying for time to paying for value / output, which is a much better place to be.


Change your Mindset – in this model, you really need to move from a mindset where you maintain a certain profit margin on every project and every billed hour of work to one where you are willing to make less (sometimes maybe even make a loss) on individual projects in order to make more overall.



If you’re looking to make such a transition and would appreciate guidance, contact us – we have tools and templates for this type of pricing that can be helpful for the transition.

16 Feb, 2024
Only 40% of XaaS leaders felt they possessed practical pricing experience when tasked with developing their company’s pricing model, according to a recent survey. While lack of experience may seem daunting, it shouldn't deter you from spearheading a pricing transformation. However, it does introduce risk. To mitigate the potential pitfalls of pricing strategy design, we recommend cross-referencing against four crucial sources to establish a solid pricing foundation.
14 Feb, 2024
Navigating the intricate world of pricing in the SaaS industry is akin to embarking on a voyage through ever-changing seas. In this dynamic landscape, where adaptability and insight are paramount, a robust pricing support network becomes not just beneficial, but essential for personal and organizational growth. Here's why cultivating such a network can spell the difference between stagnation and success in your pricing strategies.
16 Oct, 2023
It was truly a Barbie summer! While they may not seem related, Barbie - both movie and doll - have a lot to teach us about the world of software pricing. First launched in 1959, Barbie has captured the imagination of children across the globe for 60 years – with a spectacular resurgence this summer. Mattel, the company behind Barbie, has used several growth and pricing strategies applicable to companies beyond the consumer goods space. Here are a few lessons we think are particularly relevant to the world of software pricing today, a complex market where the right strategy can make or break a new product.
By James Wilton 25 Apr, 2023
Telfar Clemens, the mind behind hit clothing brand Telfar, recently made headlines announcing a new ‘dynamic pricing’ strategy that flies in the face of traditional fashion pricing, charging less for more popular items. Should other businesses follow suit and discount more when demand is high? From the article, “there will be a dynamic pricing tool on the website that ensures the most popular, fastest-selling products are cheaper. The whole experience is designed to flip the script on the fashion industry, where brands tend to charge more for popular items. And it reinforces Clemens’ mission of making his products affordable, so they are accessible to anybody who wants them.” Different, eh? To be clear, this is dynamic pricing, but it’s unconventional dynamic pricing. A conventional dynamic pricing model for fashion would suggest that price would go up as demand goes up (so long as supply stayed consistent). Telfar are flipping it, and raising supply and lowering prices when the demand increases. This aligns with their operations – more demand means materials will be ordered in higher quantities. That unlocks volume discounts, so unit costs go down, and savings can be passed on to the customer. Neat. I want to like this because (a) it’s really interesting and potentially disruptive, and (b) it’s anchored around a social conscience, and there’s not enough of that in pricing. My problem with it? I just can’t see it working. What’s the problem? Luxury goods – and fashionable clothes are luxury goods to an extent – are an interesting case because they can have negative price elasticity. This means that demand increases as the price increases, because then the goods are seen as more exclusive and therefore more desirable. In other words, when fewer people can afford a specific garment, people want it more because now having it makes them “special.” A kind of wearable status symbol. So, given that frame, Telfar’s strategy is a bit counterintuitive. They want to reduce the price of popular items so more people can afford to buy them. It remains to be seen how that is going to mess with customers’ perception of the value of those garments. Can you imagine? “I bought this, but now everyone has it. And they paid less for it than me(!) So, do I still want it as much?” Unless you’re under the age of ten or trying to blend in, people tend not to want to wear exactly the same clothes as other people. It can be embarrassing to turn up to an event in the same outfit as someone else. The phrase “b*tch stole my look!” is going to be on everybody’s lips if that look is more available the more that other people “steal” it. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if I purchase something that nobody else does, under Telfar’s model I will pay a high price for it. But then I also know that nobody else wanted it, so do I get the same sense of esteem from being the sole purchaser? It’s not that only I could afford it, or that it was limited in quantity and I was one of the lucky ones that found it. It’s that only I wanted it. The only thing that says about me is that I have non-mainstream tastes. Some people might want that (e.g., to be cool, edgy and unconventional, perhaps), but then if everyone is looking for unique clothing items hoping that other people don’t like them, then many people will buy them for that reason. And then they’ll go down in price! Final thoughts I challenge Clemens’ notion that fashion pricing is illogical. It’s extremely logical, because it involves aligning pricing to broad perceptions of value. If you turn the model on its head, as in this case, you end up getting stuck odd circular arguments (as I did) because it pulls away from buyer behavior, and it’s illogical  It’s a great pricing strategy for grabbing attention, but I’d be surprised if it is successful. I’m all for fashion being unconventionally dynamic. But any dynamic pricing for fashion should remain conventional.
SHOW MORE
Share by: