Before an organization asks what an advisor charges, it should ask a harder question: what shape of engagement does this decision actually need? A one-off question priced as a six-month programme wastes money; a structural decision handled in a single call wastes the decision. This page sets out the three shapes we work in, what each one is for, and how each is scoped and priced — so that the first conversation is about your decision, not about our formats.
The method inside every model is the same five-stage approach described on how we work; what changes between models is how much of that method a given decision justifies.
One defined decision, answered in writing. You bring a specific question — a shortlist to break, a proposal to sanity-check, a contract term to evaluate, an architecture direction to confirm — and you leave with an independent written answer, the reasoning behind it, and the alternatives we rejected. It is the smallest thing we sell, and for a well-framed question it is frequently all an organization needs. How it is priced: a fixed fee, agreed before the session happens. Book a decision session to start here.
A defined piece of work with a written scope, a named deliverable and an end. Vendor selections, platform evaluations, readiness assessments, implementation oversight — work that has a beginning and a finish line. The scope is written down before the fee is quoted, which is what makes the fee quotable: how it is priced is a fixed fee against that written scope, and a change to the scope is a change we both sign, not a surprise on an invoice. Most of the engagements described across our consulting practice run in this shape.
A retainer, in plain terms: a named advisor, an agreed cadence of working sessions, and availability between them. It exists because some organizations do not have one technology decision — they have a stream of them, and re-briefing a new advisor for each one costs more than keeping one who already knows the estate. It is our version of the fifth stage described on how we work: the relationship that continues after a project ends. How it is priced: an agreed periodic fee for an agreed cadence and scope of availability, reviewed at an agreed interval — and it ends when it stops earning its place, which we would rather you test than take on faith.
| Single advisory session | Scoped project | Ongoing advisory partnership | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built for | One defined question with a date attached | A defined piece of work with a finish line | A continuing stream of decisions on the same estate |
| What you receive | A written answer with reasoning and rejected alternatives | The scoped deliverable — selection report, assessment, oversight — in writing | A named advisor, an agreed cadence, availability in between |
| How it is scoped | The question itself, fixed before the session | A written scope both sides sign before work starts | A defined cadence and coverage, reviewed at an agreed interval |
| How it is priced | Fixed fee, agreed in advance | Fixed fee against the written scope | Agreed periodic fee for the agreed cadence |
| How it ends | With the written answer | With the deliverable accepted | When you decide it should — reviewed, not automatic |
Three questions settle it. First: is this one decision or a stream of them? One decision with a date is a session or a project; a stream is a partnership. Second: does the work have a finish line you could write down today? If yes, it is a project — and writing that line down is the first thing we will do with you. If the honest answer is "we will know it when we see it", start with a single session and let it scope the rest; paying for a session that prevents a mis-scoped project is the cheapest money in this business. Third: who else depends on the answer? A decision that a board, an investor or a regulator will examine usually justifies the project shape, because the written evidence trail is itself part of the deliverable — the same logic our strategic business advisory and venture capital advisory practices apply to bigger decisions. If you are still unsure after those three questions, that is precisely what a single session is for.
Three things, stated plainly because they are the terms buyers most often assume and least often check. We do not charge a percentage of a transaction, a licence deal or a project outcome — an advisor paid on completion has an interest in completion, which is exactly the interest you are paying an independent party to be free of. We do not publish an indicative price list on this page: our pricing work is deliberately held back until approved ranges exist rather than filled with estimates, and a range we would have to re-quote for most enquiries is worse than telling you plainly, on the first call, what your specific scope will cost. And we do not arrive with a product to sell: the recommendation is paid for by you and owed to you, which is the position our whole consulting practice is built on. If any of those three terms is negotiable elsewhere, ask why.
A retainer is standing access to an advisor who already knows your estate: a named person, an agreed rhythm of sessions, and the ability to ask between them. It beats a project when the cost of re-briefing a new advisor for each decision exceeds the cost of keeping one continuously informed — which in practice means organizations with a live platform estate and a steady stream of vendor, architecture and roadmap decisions. It is the wrong shape for a single decision, and we will say so rather than sell it.
Yes, and most engagements should. A single session can scope a project; a project can end with both sides deciding a partnership earns its place; a partnership can pause to run a defined piece of work as its own scoped project. Each move is a new written agreement, not an automatic escalation — the model changes when the shape of your decisions changes, not because a contract renews.
Every model is priced the same way: a fixed fee against a written scope, quoted before work starts, with no percentage or success component. What we decline to do is publish a generic range that your actual scope would contradict. Bring the decision to a first conversation and you will have a real number for your real scope — before you commit to anything.
You do, in all three. Written answers, selection reports, assessments and working files are handed over, not licensed back to you. That is deliberate: an advisor whose analysis only works while you keep paying has built a dependency, not a deliverable.
The honest version of this section is short: we do not currently publish engagement counts or utilisation figures we could stand behind at the standard a buyer should demand, and we would rather be checked than believed. The documented record — engagements that completed and were cleared for publication — is on our success stories page, and the shape of the method behind every one of them is on how we work.
Enterprises and government-linked organizations in Saudi Arabia running platform estates large enough that technology decisions arrive as a stream rather than one at a time. We do not display client logos ahead of each client's own agreement to appear; the permissioned list is maintained on our customers page.
Delivered work is published individually, with the client's clearance, on our projects page. Engagements that ran as sessions or retainers are, by their nature, the least publishable work we do — the deliverable is a decision, and the decision is the client's to disclose.
No quote appears here until the named client has approved the exact wording attributed to them, with name, role and organization alongside it. An unattributed testimonial is not evidence, and we would rather show this section honestly empty than fill it. If a reference matters to your decision, ask on the first call and we will arrange one where confidentiality allows.
The partnerships that stand behind the advisory work — the platforms we build on and the vendors we hold certifications with — are listed on our partners page. The boundary is the same in every engagement model: where work requires a licensed regulated activity, a statutory audit or legal advice, we work alongside your appointed licensed professionals rather than in place of them.
For the method that runs inside every model, read how we work. For the practice areas the models apply to, start at our consulting services. For decision-level examples of the models in use, see strategic business advisory and venture capital and investment advisory — both run the same three shapes against bigger decisions. And where the ongoing model extends past advice into operating the function itself, that is our outsourcing services practice.
The fastest way to find your model is to bring the decision, not the format. Book a decision session and we will tell you which shape the work actually needs — including, where it is true, that a single session is all it needs. Prefer to start in writing? Contact us.