I am working with a small company and this is an ongoing debate regarding how to best bill our customers for the work we do. Our product is an extremely long-term, high-value proposition. It effectively replaces & automates large swathes of our customers' legacy business processes.
For our customers, an hourly rate is a non-starter, despite the appealing nature of using a rate-based billing approach to head off scope creep and change requests. They need something more concrete with comprehensive up-front terms. We are starting to look at a model where the features are on individual contracts based upon their specific complexity:
"<Some Business Feature> will cost you $X to implement, another $Y/year to support and will take ~W months to reach acceptance testing phase. Minimum contract term is Z years."
This gives each customer an opportunity to prioritize specific sub-components of the product that are most important to them so that we are not implementing things without net positive business value.
We also figured out that we need to push acceptance testing and delivery timing back onto the customer so that they understand that longer timetables are a direct consequence of scope creep, change requests or their non-participation in the process. Since this is kind of a marriage between the organizations, we have built a "core" product that is a lower-stakes implementation and covers a few basic business processes. This allows for a less intense trial phase of the product where the customer can see how the overall process works for them. If they decide it's what they are looking for (i.e. they can see the business value), then we talk about tacking on the additional discrete feature modules and signing longer-term contracts.
I think our most important realization is that not all customers are compatible with our product, how much it costs, or the way we go about implementing it. The core piece of this equation is the customer being able to see through all the noise to the business value. If we cannot make the value clear to them, then we are not in any position to be talking about pricing or which features should be implemented in what order.
For our customers, an hourly rate is a non-starter, despite the appealing nature of using a rate-based billing approach to head off scope creep and change requests. They need something more concrete with comprehensive up-front terms. We are starting to look at a model where the features are on individual contracts based upon their specific complexity:
"<Some Business Feature> will cost you $X to implement, another $Y/year to support and will take ~W months to reach acceptance testing phase. Minimum contract term is Z years."
This gives each customer an opportunity to prioritize specific sub-components of the product that are most important to them so that we are not implementing things without net positive business value.
We also figured out that we need to push acceptance testing and delivery timing back onto the customer so that they understand that longer timetables are a direct consequence of scope creep, change requests or their non-participation in the process. Since this is kind of a marriage between the organizations, we have built a "core" product that is a lower-stakes implementation and covers a few basic business processes. This allows for a less intense trial phase of the product where the customer can see how the overall process works for them. If they decide it's what they are looking for (i.e. they can see the business value), then we talk about tacking on the additional discrete feature modules and signing longer-term contracts.
I think our most important realization is that not all customers are compatible with our product, how much it costs, or the way we go about implementing it. The core piece of this equation is the customer being able to see through all the noise to the business value. If we cannot make the value clear to them, then we are not in any position to be talking about pricing or which features should be implemented in what order.