TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Billing by project From:Richard Yanowitz <ryanowit -at- NYCT -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 20 May 1997 13:28:24 -0400
At 12:49 PM 5/20/97 -0400, JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM wrote:
>In a message dated 97-05-20 12:13:53 EDT, techwr -at- arundel -dot- com (Peter Kent)
><< It would be interesting to see how many bill by the project and whether
>that increases their income (I believe that overall it probably does). >>
>I avoid this like the plague.
>Even though you can build in revision rates that kick in after a first draft
>and a first revision, my experience is that there are so many unknowns going
>into a lot of projects that it's hard to come up with a realistic estimate
>that also can also be justified by specifics (as opposed say to building in
>25% overage for "unknowns".)
The nub of the problem, of course, is scoping. On the occasions when I've
done a fixed-price deal I have indeed made out extremely well (because I
work fast, and clients still don't pay more than they had expected to). I
have a check list of items to cover, such as number of screens to be
documented, average number of pages per screen, required turnaround time,
number of review cycles/drafts, and so on.
I specify that a change of scope requires re-negotiation. How do you judge
that? Technically, e.g., if more screens turn up than originally estimated
(though I always let the client know that I'm not going to quibble about a
"small" number, which I mentally define as up to 10%). If review times
don't get met, my deadlines get adjusted. And so on.
I have found clients pretty understanding about scope changes--this depends
in part on developing a good and trusting rapport with them as you go.
(The relationship is always key; so is your ability to take constructively
when problems arise such as a need for change of scope.)
Yes, I include an amount of extra money for unnegotiable contingencies. I
have no magic formula for this.
I've never yet had a problem, but yes, with the wrong client there could be
trouble that could cost money. I make out so well this way, and my clients
are happy to know up front what their costs will be, that I'm willing to
take the risk.
The main problems:
- Many projects just can't be readily scoped.
- A fair number of clients are uneasy about scoping, perhaps concerned
they'll pay less on an hourly contract, perhaps worried about changes of
- Agencies, which control most of the work, will almost never go for scoping.
Richard Yanowitz, NYC
ryanowitz -at- bigfoot -dot- com
Freelance writers (including tech writers): join the National Writers Union
Web site: http://www.nwu.org/nwu/
E-mail: nwu -at- nwu -dot- org