Why I Never Bill by the Hour

If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you know that I’m an advocate of Value-Based Fees. In a nutshell, here is the value proposition to the prospective client:

  1. There is a cap on your investment. You know exactly what is to be spent and there are no surprises.
  2. There is never a “meter running.” You do not have to worry each time my help is requested that I might be here for an hour, a day, or a week.
  3. It is unfair to you to place you in the position of making an investment decision every time you may need my help. Otherwise, you’re trying to determine the impossible: Is this an issue that justifies a $2,000 visit or a $500 phone call. No client should ever be in that position.
  4. Your people should feel free to use my assistance and to ask for my help without feeling they have to go to someone for budgetary approval. This only makes them more resistant to sharing their views, and at best delays the flow of important information.
  5. If I find additional work that was unanticipated but must be performed, I can do it without having to come to you for additional funds. In those instances, legitimate, additional work would otherwise be viewed as self-aggrandizing and an attempt to generate addition hours or days.
  6. If you find additional, related work that must be done, you can freely request it without worry about increased costs.
  7. The overall, set fee, in relation to the project outcomes to be delivered, is inevitably less of a proportional investment than hourly billing.
  8. If conditions change in your organization, you won’t be in the difficult situation of having to request that the project be completed in less time. The quality approach is assured, since the fee is set and paid.
  9. If I decide that additional resources are necessary, there is no cost to you and I can employ additional help as I see fit.
  10. This is the most uncomplicated way to work together. There will never be a debate about what is billable time (e.g., travel, report writing) or what should be done on site or off site.


  • 12ewfgdb

    This is software. It's not like renovating a bathroom where only labor is involved (choose a different tile, pay for the costlier tile, but the labor cost is the same). As long as the client is so so so sure of what he/she wants, the fixed price is a great way to go. But in software, things change (understandably so). If the client want's a change today and another 2 days later that completely contradicts the change requested, what are you going to do? Tell yourself, oh heck, now I have to start all over again, or, I know you're a small business, and you didn't know exactly what you wanted, so you know, I really need to charge hourly to make this work for both you and me.

  • mrichman

    Why would you do business with a client who doesn't know what they want? It's okay for them to change their mind, but your response should be a new proposal, not an hourly rate.

  • I agree and the point I always hear against fixed billing is it isn't flexible.

    I think it is, you can easily negotiate reduced/increased costs for the client if they are adding/changing features.

  • Agreed. I also think that the big argument against fixed billing is "flexibility" and how people relate that to Agile programming, but there's no reason why you can't negotiate fixed extra costs for new features of changes to existing requests that will take more time.

blog comments powered by Disqus