Fixed-Rate Automation Partnership

We have worked with hundreds of MSPs and seen every billing model out there. This is not a theoretical position. We have seen the outcomes both models produce and the reasons below are exactly why we made the choice we did. Our priority is to ensure every engagement yields outcomes we can stand behind.

It creates a broken incentive. Hourly billing rewards activity, not outcomes. The slower we solve your problem, the more we get paid. A flat rate flips that. Our incentive is to be efficient, deliver results, and make every sprint count.

It creates false precision. Estimating that something will take "6 hours" feels concrete, but it depends entirely on who does the work and what surprises come up. It turns estimates into promises and promises into arguments.

It makes you absorb our variance. A senior finishes in an hour, a junior takes three, and a task that suits one skill set takes twice as long with another. That is normal across any team. But with hourly billing, you are the one paying for it. Our model keeps resource management where it belongs: on us.

It shifts the conversation to the wrong thing. Instead of talking about what to build next and what matters most to your operation, you end up debating whether something should have taken 4 hours or 8. That is waste. We would rather spend that time on your backlog.

We size work by complexity and effort compared to other work we have done, not by guessing hours. A simple workflow tweak is small. A multi-system integration with unknowns is large. We know how much our team delivers per sprint based on historical performance, which means our forecasts get more accurate over time. The unit of measurement matters less than the result: predictable delivery, honest scoping, and no billing surprises.

Every active tier gets the same team quality, documentation, communication, and process. The difference is capacity and complexity. Foundation runs one focused initiative per sprint. Growth expands capacity for parallel work and can be custom-scoped around your unique needs. Maintenance is for teams that have completed a full quarterly engagement and would like an option to temporarily scale back capacity to support and minor enhancements that don't justify a full engagement.

When your backlog has enough complexity or volume that one initiative at a time won't keep pace. Complex multi-system integrations, multi-department rollouts, or situations where you need internal resource oversight all benefit from Growth's expanded capacity. If the scope calls for it, we will recommend the tier that gives the work room to breathe.

Yes. We reassess together during quarterly cadence reviews. If your backlog is growing faster than your current capacity allows, move up. If you have cleared the big initiatives and want to shift to maintenance, scale down. Every quarter we align on priorities and adjust scope accordingly.

Under our standard plans, third-party licensing costs and platform subscriptions. We build the automation, you own the platform licenses. For example, if you use Rewst, you maintain that subscription directly. Our fee covers the engineering, documentation, and knowledge transfer.

Engagements are quarterly-based. Each quarter starts with a cadence review where we align on priorities, assess what shipped, and set the roadmap for the next quarter. This gives us time to run discovery, establish rhythms, and deliver real value each cycle.