Fixed Price vs Time & Materials
Let’s consider the situation where a company considers hiring an external contractor for development work. The choice between Fixed Price and Time & Materials is examined from that perspective.
The discussion often focuses on risk, trust, and budget control. In practice, the real issue is usually something else. The article explains when each model makes sense, and discusses why the real question is not “Who bears the risk.”
Why this question keeps coming back
Customers naturally want predictability. They want to know how much a project will cost, when it will be delivered, and what they will receive at the end. Suppliers, on the other hand, want to avoid committing to outcomes that depend on unknowns, shifting requirements, or fragile technical environments.
Because of this tension, the choice of contract type is often treated as a solution in itself. Fixed price is seen as a way to control costs. Time & Materials is sometimes seen as a way to keep flexibility. The discussion quickly turns into a negotiation about who should carry the risk.
But this framing is misleading.
A contract does not create clarity. It only reflects how much clarity already exists. If the scope is stable, the inputs are known, and the expected outcome can be described precisely, then a fixed price can work well. If the situation is uncertain, evolving, or not fully understood, then no contract model can magically remove that uncertainty.
Most engineers and project managers have already seen projects fail under both models. The problem is rarely the contract itself, but the mismatch between the model and the reality.
Two typical failure patterns
- The first one is the classic fixed price trap. The customer asks for a fixed price, fixed schedule, and fixed deliverables based on requirements that are still vague or incomplete. The supplier, eager to secure the work, accepts. At first everything looks under control. Later, hidden assumptions surface, interpretations diverge, and every clarification feels like a change request. The contract promised certainty that the inputs could not support.
- The second pattern appears on the Time & Materials side. The customer and supplier agree on T&M, but day to day steering is weak. Priorities are unclear, decisions are slow, and progress is not made visible enough. Over time, the customer starts questioning the value of the hours spent. Trust erodes, not necessarily because the work is poor, but because alignment is missing.
In both cases, the contract model did not fail on its own. It was applied in a context that required a different level of definition, structure, and involvement.
Definitions of “Fixed Price” and “Time & Materials”
Before comparing contract models, it is worth defining the terms clearly. Not all readers use them in the same way, and in practice they are often interpreted differently depending on company culture, country, or procurement habits.
Fixed Price
In this article, “Fixed Price” does not only mean a fixed total cost. In most real situations, it also implies:
A fixed delivery schedule
Fixed deliverables
Even if only the price is explicitly mentioned, the expectation is usually that all three are locked together: what will be delivered, when, and for how much.
A fixed price contract therefore assumes that several conditions are already met:
The scope is well understood and stable
The expected outcome can be described clearly
A common understanding exists of what “done” means
The effort can be estimated with reasonable confidence
When these conditions hold, fixed price can provide predictability and simplify planning. When they do not, the fixed elements become points of tension rather than protection.
Time & Materials (T&M)
In a Time & Materials model:
Work is billed based on time spent and agreed rates
Scope and priorities may evolve over time
Progress is managed continuously rather than predicted in full at the start
This model is often misunderstood. It does not mean:
No objectives
No budget awareness
No accountability
It means that uncertainty is acknowledged upfront, and that decisions are made as information becomes available. Instead of fixing the outcome in advance, the work is steered step by step.
This can be a better fit when the problem is not fully understood yet, or when requirements are expected to evolve.
A note on intent
Neither model is inherently better than the other.
Fixed Price optimizes for predictability
Time & Materials optimizes for adaptability
Both can work well. Both can fail badly. The outcome depends less on the contract itself than on how well it matches the situation.
About the supporting document
In the Toolbox section of this site you will find a practical contract type selection chart. It is a simple decision aid that helps position a project based on a few key questions: How stable is the scope? How mature are the requirements? How compliant are the inputs? How much day to day steering is available? Depending on the answers, some models will naturally appear more suitable than others.
This calculator is meant as a practical complement to this article, not as a substitute for discussion or judgment. It can help structure conversations and make trade offs explicit, but it cannot replace a clear understanding of the problem to be solved.
Contract models and maturity
Behind the choice of contract type lies a less visible factor: organizational maturity. Different models assume different capabilities on the client side, and problems often arise when those assumptions do not match reality.
Here, maturity does not mean size, budget, or experience in general. It refers to more specific abilities:
The ability to express needs in a structured and testable way
The ability to make decisions in a timely manner
The ability to manage change without losing direction
The ability to expose the current state of systems and inputs clearly
These capabilities are not universal. Some organizations have strong processes for defining specifications and acceptance criteria. Others operate more informally, with knowledge spread across people rather than documents. Both can function well internally, but they do not interact with contract models in the same way.
A fixed price model assumes maturity in specification. It assumes that the client can describe what is needed, what constraints apply, and how acceptance will be determined. If this foundation is not there, the fixed elements of the contract are built on interpretations rather than shared understanding.
A Time & Materials model assumes a different kind of maturity. Instead of requiring everything to be defined upfront, it relies on day to day steering. Priorities must be clarified continuously. Questions must be answered quickly. Decisions must be made as new information appears. Without this active involvement, the work can continue, but alignment slowly degrades.
Team augmentation goes one step further. It assumes maturity in execution. Additional engineers can only be effective if the client organization is able to absorb them, assign meaningful tasks, and integrate them into existing workflows.
In all cases, the contract model does not create maturity. It assumes it. Choosing a model that requires capabilities the organization does not yet have is one of the most common sources of friction in technical projects.
Fixed price requires mature, compliant inputs
A fixed price agreement is often seen as a way to gain predictability. For it to work as intended, however, it relies on more than a clear statement of intent. It requires a solid foundation: well defined requirements, a shared understanding of acceptance, and inputs that are usable from the start.
Formal requirements, acceptance, and Definition of Done
At the heart of a fixed price contract lies a simple question: how will both parties know that the work is finished and acceptable?
Answering that question requires more than a general description. It requires:
A written specification
Requirements that are clear and testable
A formal acceptance procedure
An explicit Definition of Done
Clear scope boundaries and exclusions
The Definition of Done is particularly important. It makes expectations concrete. It describes what must be delivered, how it will be verified, and under what conditions the work will be considered complete.
This ability to define the target precisely is a sign of maturity. It means that the organization can translate an idea into verifiable requirements and measurable acceptance criteria. Not every company operates at that level of formalization, especially in early phases of a project.
When the Definition of Done is vague or implicit, fixed price does not remove uncertainty. It simply moves the discussion to the end of the project, when acceptance becomes a negotiation.
Input compliance: when clear scope is not enough
Even with a well written specification, another assumption often goes unnoticed: the starting point must be usable.
Consider a seemingly simple request: write a driver for a specific device, with clearly listed features. On paper, the scope looks reasonable and bounded. But if the Linux distribution into which the driver must be integrated does not even compile, the real work changes immediately. Before any driver development can begin, time must be spent restoring a working baseline.
In this situation, the scope has not changed, but the problem has. The task is no longer just implementation. It includes diagnosing and fixing issues that were not part of the original request.
A non building system is not a minor inconvenience. It is an invalid input. Without a compliant starting point, estimates lose their meaning and acceptance criteria become harder to apply.
Fixed price implicitly assumes that the environment, tools, and inputs it depends on are available and functional. If that assumption is wrong, uncertainty reappears in a place the contract did not plan for.
Why input problems are systemic
These situations are more common than they might appear, and they do not necessarily reflect negligence.
Many systems are long lived. Over time, build procedures evolve, tools change, and knowledge becomes implicit. A product may work reliably in production while no one has rebuilt it from scratch in years. Internally, this feels stable. Externally, it can be difficult to reproduce.
The gap between “it exists” and “it can be rebuilt” is often invisible until an external supplier tries to work with the system.
Organizations therefore tend to overestimate the maturity of their own assets, simply because they rarely need to expose them in a fully documented, reproducible way. For fixed price work, however, this maturity is not optional. It is part of the foundation on which the estimate is built.
Time & Materials: a different form of maturity
Time & Materials is often presented as the opposite of fixed price: less structure, more flexibility. In reality, it also requires maturity, but in a different place.
Instead of requiring everything to be defined upfront, T&M assumes that the work will be guided continuously. The focus shifts from specification to steering.
From the client side, this means:
Priorities must be clarified and updated regularly
Questions must be answered in a timely manner
Decisions must be made as new information appears
Someone must actively own the direction of the work
Without this day to day involvement, work can continue for a long time without clear alignment. Effort accumulates, but the connection to value becomes less visible. This is often when trust starts to erode, not because the supplier is doing poor work, but because the steering function is weak.
From the supplier side, T&M also carries obligations:
Progress must be visible and understandable
Risks and blockers must be exposed early
Communication must be frequent and clear
Time spent must be justifiable in terms of outcomes
In this model, alignment replaces prediction. Instead of trying to fix the destination and the path in advance, both sides move step by step, adjusting as they learn more.
This does not mean the project has no structure. It means the structure is dynamic. Objectives still exist. Budgets still matter. But the model accepts that uncertainty will be resolved during execution rather than eliminated before it starts.
Time & Materials replaces upfront certainty with continuous alignment. That alignment requires maturity, attention, and involvement from both sides.
Team augmentation: maturity in execution, not specification
Team augmentation can be seen as a variant of Time & Materials taken one step further. The client does not necessarily have a clearly defined set of tasks ready to outsource. What is known is the need for additional capacity, skills, or experience to move things forward.
In this model, the supplier does not commit to delivering a predefined outcome. Instead, engineers integrate into the client’s team and contribute where needed. Tasks emerge and evolve over time. Priorities may change frequently. Value comes from sustained, effective participation rather than from delivering a fixed, isolated piece of work.
This approach is suited to situations where uncertainty is high and planning is still in progress. For example:
A product is under heavy development pressure
Several technical problems must be addressed in parallel
The organization knows it needs help but cannot yet structure the work into clean packages
In such contexts, trying to define a fixed scope upfront can be artificial. The work exists, but it is not yet organized into well bounded deliverables.
Team augmentation therefore requires maturity in execution rather than in specification. The client organization must be able to:
Absorb additional engineers into existing workflows
Assign meaningful tasks and priorities
Provide access to tools, information, and decision makers
Maintain direction and coherence across multiple contributors
Without this internal structure, additional capacity does not automatically translate into more progress. This is a well known lesson in software engineering, famously discussed in Frederick Brooks’ Mythical Man-Month: adding people to a project does not automatically make it move faster, and can even slow it down if coordination and direction are not in place.
For this reason, fixed price is fundamentally incompatible with team augmentation. The model is built around responsiveness and adaptation. The content of the work is expected to evolve, and this evolution is part of the value.
When fixed price is required but maturity is missing
In some organizations, the choice of contract model is not entirely open. Procurement rules, budgeting practices, or internal policies may strongly favor fixed price. From a management perspective, this can make sense. Fixed commitments appear easier to plan, approve, and track.
Difficulties arise when a fixed price is required but the necessary maturity is not yet there. Requirements may still be evolving. Acceptance criteria may be unclear. Inputs may not be fully compliant. In these situations, committing directly to a fixed scope, schedule, and deliverables creates tension from the start.
A practical way forward is to separate the work into stages.
Building maturity as a separate work package
Instead of forcing everything into a single fixed price commitment, the first step can focus on building the foundation needed for a reliable estimate.
A first work package can be dedicated to:
Clarifying and structuring the requirements
Defining the Definition of Done
Establishing acceptance criteria and procedures
Identifying assumptions and validating inputs
This stage can itself be fixed price and time bounded. Its output is not a finished product, but a clear and shared understanding of what will be built and how completion will be measured.
Once this first package is completed and accepted, the actual implementation can be addressed as a second phase. At that point, the scope is more stable, the inputs are better understood, and a fixed price estimate has a much stronger foundation. Depending on what remains uncertain, the implementation phase may still be fixed price or may be handled under Time & Materials.
Why this often leads to Time & Materials
Building this level of clarity takes real effort. Formalizing requirements, defining acceptance, and validating inputs is engineering work in its own right. In many projects, it represents a significant share of the total effort.
This leads to an important realization. Fixed price does not remove the cost of uncertainty. It concentrates it at the beginning, in the form of analysis, clarification, and risk reduction.
Time & Materials, by contrast, allows that cost to be distributed across the work as knowledge grows and decisions are made. For many clients, once the amount of effort needed to reach a fully specified and compliant starting point becomes visible, T&M appears as the more pragmatic option.
In other words, maturity can be built, but building it is part of the project.
Note on work location
It is worth briefly addressing a common source of confusion. The choice between fixed price, Time & Materials, or team augmentation is independent of whether the work is performed on site or remotely.
Contract type and work location solve different problems. One deals with uncertainty, scope, and responsibility. The other deals with access to equipment, integration with teams, and practical constraints.
In practice, the need to be on site should be driven by rational technical reasons such as:
Access to unmovable hardware, labs, or test benches
Constraints related to safety or regulation
Close interaction with manufacturing or integration activities
It should not be assumed that one contract model requires physical presence more than another.
This topic deserves a more detailed discussion and will be addressed separately.
Key takeaway: contract choice is a maturity decision
Fixed Price and Time & Materials are often presented as opposing philosophies. In reality, they are simply different ways of organizing work under uncertainty. Both can work well. Both can fail badly. The difference is not the contract itself, but how well it matches the situation.
A fixed price model requires maturity in specification. The client must be able to express requirements clearly, define acceptance, and ensure that the starting inputs are compliant. When these elements are in place, fixed price can provide stability and predictability.
Time & Materials requires a different kind of maturity. Instead of formalizing everything upfront, it relies on continuous steering. Priorities must be managed actively. Decisions must be made quickly. Progress must be visible. When this alignment is maintained, the model allows adaptation without constant renegotiation.
Team augmentation shifts the requirement further toward execution. It assumes that the organization can absorb additional capacity, direct it effectively, and integrate it into existing workflows.
In all cases, the contract does not create maturity. It assumes it.
Many of the tensions seen in projects do not come from bad intent or poor work. They come from a mismatch between the contract model and the actual level of readiness of the organization and its inputs. Fixed price applied to vague requirements creates conflict. Time & Materials without active steering erodes trust.
The real question is not who carries the risk. It is whether the organization is ready for the model it is asking for.
Enjoyed this article?
Embedded Notes is an occasional, curated selection of similar content, delivered to you by email. No marketing noise.
