01
Client context
Clients were pushing back on time-and-materials billing and asking for more predictable pricing.
02
Business challenge
The firm was unsure how to price outcome-based engagements without taking excessive risk.
03
Research objective & questions
Understand client pricing preferences and design viable alternative pricing models.
- Which pricing models do clients prefer, and why?
- Which engagement types suit fixed-fee or outcome pricing?
- How do competitors price?
- What risk-sharing would clients accept?
04
Methodology & approach
- Client buyer interviews
- CIOs and procurement leaders.
- Pricing survey
- Preferences across models and scenarios.
- Competitor pricing review
- Published and reported models.
- Internal delivery data review
- Project cost variability.
05
Sample & geography
- ~20 client interviews
- ~100 survey responses
- Geography — India, the US and the UK
06
Key findings
- Clients preferred fixed fees for well-defined implementation phases.
- Outcome pricing appealed only where outcomes were measurable and controllable.
- Procurement valued predictability over the lowest price.
- Competitors used hybrid models more often.
07
Business implications
- Adopt hybrid pricing with fixed-fee phases.
- Pilot outcome pricing on measurable use cases.
- Improve estimation discipline to manage fixed-fee risk.
08
Outcome
The firm received a pricing model framework and pilot recommendations.
Example engagement — Shows how Hoog approaches this type of question. Not a specific client project. Findings are directional.