Engaging an AI consultancy like Team400 involves choosing not just a partner but a relationship structure. Different engagement models suit different situations.

Understanding these options helps organizations make better decisions about how to work with AI specialists.

The Engagement Spectrum

AI agency engagements range from highly structured to highly flexible:

Fixed-price projects: Defined scope, defined deliverables, defined price. Clear boundaries and outcomes.

Time and materials: Agency provides resources; client pays for time spent. Flexible but requires close management.

Retainer arrangements: Ongoing relationship with committed capacity. Combines predictability with flexibility.

Outcome-based models: Payment tied to achieving defined business results. Aligns incentives but requires careful definition.

Hybrid structures: Combinations of the above, tailored to specific needs.

Each model has advantages and disadvantages depending on context.

Fixed-Price Projects

How it works: Agency proposes a fixed price for defined deliverables. Changes in scope require change orders.

Works well when:

• Requirements are clear and stable
• Scope can be meaningfully bounded
• Client wants budget certainty
• The problem is well-understood

Challenges:

• Scope definition requires upfront investment
• Unexpected complexity falls on the agency (who then cuts corners or requests changes)
• May incentivize minimal viable delivery
• Limited flexibility for learning during development

Typical use cases: Proof of concept development, defined integrations, known problem patterns.

Time and Materials

How it works: Client pays for time at agreed rates. Scope evolves based on need.

Works well when:

• Requirements are unclear or evolving
• Flexibility is more valuable than budget certainty
• Client can actively manage the engagement
• Discovery is a significant portion of the work

Challenges:

• Budget uncertainty
• Requires active client management to prevent scope drift
• Agency may lack incentive for efficiency
• Harder to evaluate value received

Typical use cases: Exploration and discovery, evolving requirements, long-term development.

Retainer Arrangements

How it works: Client commits to ongoing capacity (monthly hours or team allocation). Agency provides consistent availability.

Works well when:

• Ongoing AI development needs exist
• Continuity of team knowledge matters
• Work is somewhat unpredictable but persistent
• Long-term relationship benefits both parties

Challenges:

• Commitment may exceed actual needs in some months
• “Use it or lose it” dynamics can create waste
• May reduce urgency compared to project-based work
• Requires ongoing management

Typical use cases: Continuous improvement programs, ongoing support, strategic partnerships.

Outcome-Based Models

How it works: Payment tied to achieving defined business outcomes (cost savings, revenue increase, efficiency gains).

Works well when:

• Outcomes can be clearly measured
• Agency has significant control over achieving outcomes
• Both parties can tolerate outcome uncertainty
• Trust exists between parties

Challenges:

• Defining and measuring outcomes is difficult
• External factors may affect results despite good work
• May create conflict over measurement methodology
• Requires longer timeline to demonstrate results

Typical use cases: Process automation with clear metrics, lead generation, revenue-impacting applications.

Choosing the Right Model

Selection criteria for engagement models:

Requirement clarity: Clear requirements → fixed-price viable. Unclear requirements → time and materials or retainer.

Budget constraints: Strict budget → fixed-price. Flexible budget → time and materials offers more adaptability.

Timeline: Short timeline → fixed-price creates urgency. Long timeline → retainer provides stability.

Risk tolerance: Risk-averse → fixed-price transfers risk. Risk-tolerant → outcome-based offers upside.

Management capacity: Limited client bandwidth → fixed-price requires less oversight. Available bandwidth → time and materials allows more control.

Hybrid Structures

Many successful engagements combine models:

Discovery plus development: Time and materials for discovery, fixed-price for development.

Base plus variable: Retainer for baseline capacity, time and materials for overflow.

Fixed plus outcomes: Fixed fee for delivery, bonus for achieving outcome thresholds.

Phase-gated projects: Fixed-price phases with decision points between phases.

Hybrid structures require more sophistication to manage but can capture benefits of multiple models.

Negotiation Considerations

Key points in engagement negotiations:

Change management: How are scope changes handled? What triggers change orders?

IP ownership: Who owns the code, models, and training data? This should be explicit.

Knowledge transfer: What documentation and training is included?

Support obligations: What happens after primary delivery completes?

Exit provisions: How can either party exit if the engagement isn’t working?

Performance standards: What quality or performance criteria must be met?

Red Flags

Warning signs in engagement structures:

Undefined change processes: Scope changes will happen. No process for handling them creates conflict.

Unclear IP terms: Ambiguity about ownership creates problems later.

No exit provisions: Inability to exit a failing engagement gracefully.

Misaligned incentives: Structure that rewards the agency for behaviors contrary to client interest.

Missing quality standards: No definition of acceptable work quality.

The Relationship Factor

Engagement model matters less than relationship quality. Well-structured engagements with poor partners fail. Imperfect structures with good partners often succeed.

Invest in partner selection, not just contract negotiation. References, cultural fit, and communication quality predict success better than contract terms.

My Recommendation

For most organizations engaging AI agencies:

Start with fixed-price for bounded projects: Get experience working together without open-ended commitments.

Move to retainer or time and materials for ongoing work: Once trust is established, flexible arrangements enable better outcomes.

Consider outcome-based for mature relationships: When both parties understand the work well, outcome alignment can create mutual benefit.

The right model is the one that aligns incentives and accommodates uncertainty for your specific situation.

---

Analyzing AI agency engagement models and selecting the right approach.