.avif)
The longer the SOW, the more redlines, and the more lawyers involved, the more likely it is that your client has been burned before.
Every clause trying to control your scope is a scar from a previous project that went sideways. Every demand for fixed fees, performance guarantees, or outcome-based pricing is usually less about procurement strategy and more about fear.
Sarah Hurd, VP of Services and Operations at Fe Digital, sees this pattern often. Fe Digital is a CRM-focused technology consulting firm and Rocketlane customer, and Sarah's session at Propel 26 focused on what is really driving the shift toward outcome-based pricing, why many PS teams are not ready for it, and how to move in that direction without putting margins at risk.
Her argument was simple: outcome-based pricing is not just a pricing conversation. It is a trust conversation.
Why Are Clients Asking for Outcome-Based Pricing?
Clients are not asking for outcome-based pricing because they have all suddenly become pricing theorists.
They are asking because they have lost trust in traditional delivery models.
Hurdframed it clearly: when a client pushes for more contract protection, tighter scope control, or pricing tied to outcomes, they are often reacting to an earlier experience where expectations and reality diverged.
Maybe the timeline stretched. Maybe the budget broke. Maybe the implementation technically went live but never delivered the efficiency, adoption, or revenue impact the buyer expected.
As Sarah put it, there is often "a disconnect between what they thought they purchased and what they actually received."
That disconnect is what traditional time-and-materials pricing can make worse. Even when the model is fair internally, it can feel predatory to a client who already believes they paid for activity instead of value.
The rise of AI is adding pressure to the conversation. Clients are beginning to ask whether they can use tools like Claude or ChatGPT to generate a checklist and implement more of the work themselves.
That does not eliminate the need for professional services, but it does force every PS team to answer a sharper question: what value are you creating that the client can clearly see, measure, and trust?
How to Prepare Your PS Team for Outcome-Based Pricing
The biggest barrier to outcome-based pricing is not willingness.
It is readiness.
Most clients cannot clearly articulate what success looks like before a project starts. Many have not sold the business case internally in measurable terms.
And many PS teams unintentionally reinforce the problem by saving all outcome conversations for the end of the engagement.
Fe Digital's fix starts before pricing changes at all: baseline measurement at the beginning of every engagement.
What are you tracking today? What does the current state look like? What would meaningful improvement look like in six months?
Fe Digital standardizes this using Rocketlane's shared project sheets. Every engagement template includes a baseline metrics section.
Clients can delete rows for metrics they do not track, but they cannot skip the baseline step. If a client does not know how to measure something important, Fe Digital helps measure it on their behalf.
That shared visibility becomes the foundation for every outcome conversation later. When both sides see the same numbers from day one, the trust gap starts closing before the first invoice.
This is where Rocketlane's role matters. It is not just a place to store a template. It becomes the system of record where project plans, time, financials, customer collaboration, and baseline metrics live together.
That makes outcome measurement easier to verify throughout the engagement, instead of reconstructing value from scattered tools at renewal.
Why Shared Measurement Matters More Than Pricing Structure
Outcome-based pricing only works when both sides agree on what the outcome means.
That sounds obvious, but it is where many models break.
Sarah gave the example of chatbot performance. A vendor might report 10,000 resolutions, while the client argues many of those were actually abandoned conversations. Without shared measurement, both sides can be technically right and commercially misaligned.
That is the trust gap in action.
If only one party can calculate the result, the model will not feel fair. If the definition requires legal language and custom calculations no one fully understands, the trust gap widens instead of shrinking.
Sarah's test for outcome readiness is direct: if you cannot explain the outcome in one sentence, you are not ready to price on it.
Before teams change the pricing model, they need to make the measurement model credible. That means defining the baseline, agreeing on the metric, making the data visible, and giving both sides access to the same source of truth.
Outcome-based pricing is not built on optimism.
It is built on shared evidence.
Which Hybrid Pricing Models Are Working Right Now?
Fe Digital is not fully outcome-based yet, and Sarah was transparent about that. Instead, the team has built a progression toward outcome alignment that reduces client fear without taking on unmanageable risk.
Fixed Fee with Outcomes Built into the Positioning
The price does not change, but the promise does.
Instead of framing the engagement around tasks completed, Fe Digital frames it around what the client will have achieved at the end. The delivery risk remains manageable, but the client hears a value story instead of an activity story.
This is often the easiest first step for PS teams that are not ready to price directly on outcomes.
Fixed-Resource Engagements for a Defined Period
In this model, the client buys access to a resource for a set period: for example, a fractional AI consultant or a partial FTE.
The scope remains flexible, but the financial exposure is known from day one. That predictability reduces fear and creates a structure clients can trust.
Managed Services for Ongoing Metrics Accountability
Instead of ending the relationship at go-live, Fe Digital extends the engagement into a lightweight ongoing model. It is not so expensive that it feels like a heavy retainer, but it lasts long enough to track whether the promised outcomes are materializing.
Clients receive monthly metrics and, importantly, a built-in opt-out if the trajectory is not there.
That changes the tone of the relationship. The client does not feel trapped, and the vendor earns the right to continue.
Partner-Funded Success Packages
Fe Digital is also testing models where part of the vendor's subscription fee funds services work, especially in areas like helpdesk and AI agent deployments where outcome-based pricing is becoming more common.
In this structure, Fe Digital becomes accountable to the same success metrics the vendor tracks. Revenue may be lower upfront, but accountability is better aligned across the vendor, services partner, and client.
4 Key Takeaways on Closing the Trust Gap
Start with the Baseline, Not the SOW
Before any pricing conversation, capture where the client is today. Standardize that measurement across engagement types. Clients who cannot articulate their baseline cannot evaluate your outcomes later.
Prove Value Before You Reprice
Use your system of record—where project data, time tracking, financials, and outcomes live together—to pull metrics without manual reconciliation. Surface those metrics in shareable dashboards clients can access directly. By the time pricing changes, outcomes should already be documented and credible.
Test Readiness Before Committing
For each engagement type, ask three questions: can you deliver it on a fixed fee, can you measure the outcome on the client's behalf, and do external benchmarks exist for what good looks like? If the answer is yes across all three, you may be ready to test outcome-based pricing.
Give Clients an Exit
The fastest way to reduce fear is to make leaving safe if outcomes do not materialize. An opt-out tied to outcome trajectory changes the relationship from adversarial to aligned.
Conclusion
Outcome-based pricing is not a pricing innovation. It is a trust repair.
The clients asking for it have often been burned before, and they are testing whether this engagement will be different. Sarah Hurd's framework works because it closes the gap before the pricing conversation even starts: measure the baseline, prove the value, and give clients an exit if the trajectory is not there.
The teams getting this right are not just repricing services. They are building operational foundations where outcomes are measurable, shared, and tied to delivery execution.
When baselines are captured at kickoff, progress remains visible throughout the engagement, and financials stay connected to delivery, outcome-based pricing becomes the natural next step—not a negotiating position.
Start with the baseline. Prove it before you price it.
And make sure you can explain the outcome in one sentence.
.webp)