|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
5162 days ago
|
|
Your definition of the word "fair" is broken. You've defined it to mean "extracts from the relation, at all feasible cost, the maximum amount of value for the client". That's not what "fair" means. "Fair" means that both the client and the consultant agree that the terms of the engagement are equitable: that the consultant is being compensated in accordance with the value they're generating. The clients you want to work with will universally agree that, absent some other arrangement, it is "fair" to establish a minimum billable increment of a full day. That full day increment accounts for the cost to you, the consultant, in terms of lost flexibility and opportunity to serve other clients for the remainder of that day; it also accounts for the amount of time you're inevitably spending "ramping down" from one project before "ramping up" to the next, and for the complexity that client is adding to your schedule. It also acknowledges the fact that virtually anything you could be doing for them is worth at least one billable day. What I find most amusing about discussions like this is the stridency of opposition to 1-day minimums. Freelancers on HN are, frequently, proud of the fact that they're screwing themselves, and proud that they're leaving money on the table. |
|
I think the above phrase is the key to understanding "per-day" vs "per-hour" billing thinking.
I suspect most developers don't think in terms of value they're generating--partly because they don't know the value they are generating.
It's easier to think that you're billing based on "how long I'm sitting in front of the computer typing" rather than "how much value I'm generating" because then you don't need to think about how much value you are generating.
From a client's point of view, they're never paying for you to sit in front of a computer, they're paying for the value you're providing to them.
I suspect part of the issue is that "per-day" still seems like a measure of time not a measure of value.