Develop consulting pricing models and commercial strategy for engagements. Use when structuring fees (fixed, T&M, value-based, retainer, outcome-based), building rate cards, modeling engagement economics, setting payment terms, analyzing margins, planning discount strategy, or preparing commercial terms for proposals and SOWs.
npx claudepluginhub anotb/management-consulting-pluginThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Structure pricing models, rate cards, engagement economics, and commercial terms for consulting engagements. Balance the firm's margin requirements with competitive positioning and client value delivery.
Generates McKinsey/BCG-style consulting proposal templates with transparent pricing calculations from service definitions, rate cards, and engagement types like project or retainer.
Guides SaaS pricing decisions with value metrics, tier structures, packaging strategies, discount frameworks, upsells, and experiments.
Designs value-based pricing tiers, packaging, and pages for SaaS products. Conducts willingness-to-pay research, competitive analysis, and price increase strategies.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Structure pricing models, rate cards, engagement economics, and commercial terms for consulting engagements. Balance the firm's margin requirements with competitive positioning and client value delivery.
The right pricing model depends on the engagement, not on preference. Understand what you're pricing before deciding how to price it.
Engagement factors that drive model selection:
| Factor | Assessment Range | Pricing Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Scope clarity | Defined / Fuzzy / Evolving | Clear scope enables fixed fee; fuzzy scope needs T&M or retainer |
| Duration | Weeks / Months / Ongoing | Longer engagements favor retainers or phased fixed fees |
| Deliverables | Tangible / Advisory / Implementation | Tangible deliverables support fixed fee; advisory work suits retainer |
| Risk level | Low / Medium / High | Higher risk warrants premium or risk-sharing model |
| Client relationship | New / Existing / Strategic | Strategic accounts may warrant investment pricing |
| Outcome measurability | Measurable / Partially / Not measurable | Measurable outcomes enable value-based or outcome-based pricing |
Pricing model options:
| Model | How It Works | Best When | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time & Materials (T&M) | Bill hours/days at agreed rates | Scope is undefined or evolving; discovery phases; staff augmentation | Low risk to consultant, high to client |
| Fixed Fee | Agreed price for defined scope | Scope is clear and stable; deliverables are concrete; you've done similar work before | High risk to consultant (scope creep), low to client |
| Retainer | Monthly fee for access and availability | Ongoing advisory relationships; predictable recurring needs; strategic accounts | Medium to both sides |
| Value-Based | Fee linked to value delivered | Client outcomes are quantifiable; ROI is clear and large; you can credibly claim attribution | Low risk to consultant if structured well |
| Outcome-Based | Fee tied to achieving specific results | Clear metrics exist; you have significant control over outcomes; client trusts measurement | Shared risk; high upside potential |
| Risk/Reward | Base fee plus performance bonus | Client wants skin in the game; results are measurable; relationship supports transparency | Shared risk; aligns incentives |
| Hybrid | Combine models (e.g., T&M with a cap, fixed fee + success bonus) | Complex engagements with both defined and undefined components | Tailored risk sharing |
Model selection logic:
Can you define the scope precisely? If yes, lean toward fixed fee. If no, lean toward T&M or retainer.
Can you measure the value you'll create? If yes, consider value-based or outcome-based pricing, especially if the value is large relative to fees.
Is this an ongoing relationship? If yes, retainer or hybrid models create stability for both sides.
Rates are the foundation of every pricing model, even when you don't show them to the client.
Rate card development:
| Level | Typical Daily Rate Range | What Drives the Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Partner/Director | Top of range | Client relationship, deal origination, quality assurance, experience premium |
| Principal/Associate Director | Upper-mid range | Workstream leadership, client management, senior problem-solving |
| Manager/Engagement Manager | Mid range | Day-to-day delivery, team management, analysis oversight |
| Senior Consultant | Lower-mid range | Core analytical work, deliverable production, client interaction |
| Consultant | Lower range | Analytical support, research, deliverable drafting |
| Analyst | Entry range | Data gathering, modeling support, research |
Rate determination factors:
| Factor | Direction | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Market rates | Benchmark | What competitors charge for comparable work |
| Specialization premium | Up | Scarce expertise commands higher rates |
| Relationship/volume | Down | Strategic accounts and large commitments earn discounts |
| Scope certainty | Up for uncertain | Risk premium for poorly defined work |
| Urgency | Up | Timeline pressure warrants premium |
| Location/delivery model | Variable | On-site typically higher than remote; offshore lower |
| Competitive pressure | Down | If the client has alternatives, rates may flex |
Team composition and leverage:
The team mix drives both cost and perceived value. Higher partner/principal involvement signals seniority but raises fees. Higher analyst/consultant leverage reduces fees but may concern clients about junior staffing.
Typical leverage ratios by engagement type:
| Engagement Type | Partner:Manager:Consultant Ratio | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | 1:1:2 | High-judgment work, senior-heavy |
| Operations improvement | 1:2:4 | Process work, more execution-heavy |
| Implementation | 1:3:6 | Execution-intensive, more junior resource |
| Due diligence | 1:1:3 | Time-pressured, analytical |
| Advisory retainer | 1:1:1 | Senior-focused, relationship-driven |
Build the cost model to understand your margins before you price.
Direct costs:
| Category | What to Include |
|---|---|
| Personnel | Fully loaded cost of team time (salary + benefits + overhead, not billing rate) |
| Travel | Flights, hotels, meals, ground transport (if on-site) |
| Third-party costs | Licensed data, specialist subcontractors, tools, software |
| Materials | Printing, production costs for deliverables |
Indirect costs and overhead:
| Category | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| Firm overhead allocation | 15-30% of direct personnel cost |
| Business development cost | 5-10% (the cost of winning the work) |
| Risk contingency | 5-15% depending on scope certainty |
Margin analysis:
| Metric | What It Tells You |
|---|---|
| Gross margin (fee minus direct cost) | Whether the engagement covers its direct costs with room to spare |
| Contribution margin (fee minus all allocated costs) | Whether the engagement contributes to firm profitability |
| Realization rate (actual fee / standard rate card value) | How much of your rate card you're actually capturing |
| Effective daily rate (total fee / total days worked) | What you're actually earning per day across the team |
Target margins vary by firm size and market position, but as a general guide:
Commercial terms are where pricing meets contracting. Get these wrong and a well-priced engagement still loses money.
Payment structure options:
| Structure | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Monthly invoicing | T&M engagements; straightforward, predictable |
| Milestone-based | Fixed fee engagements; ties payment to deliverable acceptance |
| Upfront + milestones | New clients or large engagements; reduces payment risk |
| Monthly retainer | Retainer models; predictable for both sides |
| Outcome-triggered | Value/outcome-based; payment when results are achieved |
Payment schedule design:
For fixed-fee or milestone-based engagements, front-load payments to match your cost profile. You incur most costs early (team ramp-up, research, analysis); your payment schedule should reflect that.
A typical schedule:
Never put more than 40% of the fee on final acceptance. If the client delays acceptance, you're financing the engagement.
Standard commercial terms:
| Term | Standard Position | Negotiation Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Payment terms | Net 30 | Push back on Net 60+; it's a financing cost you're absorbing |
| Expense policy | Reimbursed at cost, pre-approved | Cap expenses as a % of fees if the client insists |
| Intellectual property | Client owns client-specific work product; firm retains methodologies and tools | Non-negotiable on methodology; flexible on work product |
| Confidentiality | Mutual NDA | Standard; rarely contentious |
| Liability cap | 1-2x total fees | Don't accept unlimited liability |
| Termination | 30-day notice; payment for work completed | Protect against sudden termination; include kill fee for fixed-fee work |
| Scope changes | Written change order process with pricing | Essential for fixed-fee; protects against scope creep |
IP and licensing considerations:
For engagements involving proprietary tools, models, or software:
Every engagement involves negotiation. Have a strategy before you enter the room.
Discount types and when to use them:
| Discount Type | Typical Range | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | 5-15% | Multiple engagements or large scope commitment |
| Relationship/strategic | 5-10% | Long-term partnership, reference client, marquee logo |
| Early payment | 2-5% | Payment within 10-15 days (a genuine financing benefit to you) |
| Competitive | 5-10% | When you need to win and the client has credible alternatives |
| Pilot/land-and-expand | 10-20% | First engagement priced to win, with expansion opportunity |
Negotiation principles:
Pricing sensitivity analysis:
Model three scenarios before presenting:
| Scenario | Assumptions | Fee | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | Scope as defined, standard team, no complications | Target fee | Target margin |
| Upside | Scope expands, additional phases, premium positioning | Higher fee | Higher margin |
| Downside | Scope narrows, competitive pressure, discount applied | Floor fee | Minimum acceptable margin |
For any engagement above commodity rates, you need a value story. Clients buy outcomes, not inputs.
Value quantification framework:
| Value Driver | How to Measure | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Cost reduction | Current cost minus future cost | Process improvement saves $2M/year in labor |
| Revenue increase | Incremental revenue attributable to engagement | Pricing optimization adds $5M in annual revenue |
| Risk reduction | Expected loss avoided or probability reduced | Compliance program reduces expected regulatory fines |
| Speed to market | Value of time saved | Launching 3 months earlier captures $3M in first-mover revenue |
| Capability building | Cost of alternative capability development | Building internal team would cost $4M and take 18 months |
Value-sharing models:
| Approach | Structure | When It Works |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of value | Fee = X% of quantified benefit | Value is large, measurable, and clearly attributable |
| Tiered sharing | Lower % on first tranche, higher on upside | Aligns incentives as value grows |
| Base + bonus | Fixed base fee plus bonus for exceeding targets | Client wants cost certainty with performance alignment |
| Gainsharing | Fee funded from realized savings | Cost reduction engagements with measurable baseline |
ROI presentation:
Present the client's investment case clearly:
Retainers deserve specific attention because they're the most relationship-dependent model.
Retainer design:
| Element | What to Define |
|---|---|
| Monthly fee | Fixed amount, usually based on expected hours x blended rate |
| Hours included | Specify a range or minimum/maximum |
| Rollover policy | Do unused hours carry forward? (Usually no, or capped) |
| Overage rate | Rate for hours beyond the included amount |
| Scope boundaries | What's in-scope vs. what triggers a separate engagement |
| Review period | When to reassess the retainer level (quarterly is typical) |
| Termination notice | Usually 30-60 days |
Tier structures:
| Tier | Positioning | Typical Includes |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory | Senior access, strategic guidance | Partner/principal hours, limited deliverables |
| Standard | Ongoing project support | Mixed team, regular deliverables, monthly check-ins |
| Embedded | Team augmentation, continuous delivery | Dedicated resources, sprint-based delivery, daily interaction |