Three ways to engage.

Project-based work, embedded specialists, or operated as a service. The right model isn't a property of the client. It's a property of where the work is in its own lifecycle.

What lands in your inbox is a document. Here are the three documents.

Engagement model document fragments

Statement of Work · SOW-2026-0142

Project-Based

Fixed scope. Fixed fee. Defined endpoint.

  • Scope Information architecture design and DITA migration for the regulated-IFU content estate — 14 device families, 5 markets.
  • Deliverables Content model · Taxonomy · Migration toolchain · ~60,000 topic conversion · Author runbook
  • Acceptance Criteria Conversion fidelity ≥ 99.5%. All topics validated against target DTD. Runbook accepted by Client publishing lead.
  • Term 12 weeks · Effective 2026–06–01 → 2026–08–24
  • Fee $XXX,XXX fixed · 30% kickoff / 40% midpoint / 30% on acceptance
Form: SOW v3.2 Page 1 of 9

Order Form #07 · under MSA-2024-0388

Staff Augmentation

Embedded specialists on your direction.

  • Resource Profile Senior DITA Information Architect (1.0 FTE) · Senior XML Engineer (0.5 FTE)
  • Direction Resources work to Client's project plan, attend Client standups, report to Client engineering lead. No fixed deliverable.
  • Term 6-month minimum · 2026–06–15 → 2026–12–15 · 30-day extension notice
  • Rate $XXX / hour · billed monthly against timesheet · 40 hr/week target utilization
  • Reporting Weekly timesheet · Monthly utilization summary · Quarterly performance review
Form: Order Form v2.1 Page 1 of 4

Service Level Agreement · MSA-2026-0091

Managed Services

Operated for you. Continuously.

  • Services in Scope CCMS administration · Publishing pipeline operation · Schema governance · Tier 2/3 support · Content-model evolution
  • Coverage Business days · 8am–6pm ET · After-hours on-call for Severity 1
  • Response Targets Sev 1 < 1 hr · Sev 2 < 4 hrs · Sev 3 < 1 business day · Sev 4 < 5 business days
  • Term 12-month initial · Auto-renew annually · 60-day termination for convenience
  • Fee $XX,XXX monthly · Reviewed annually for scope adjustment
Form: SLA v4.0 Page 1 of 12

The shape of an engagement evolves.

Most engagements start project-based. The architecture work, the migration, the initial CCMS implementation — these have clear scopes, clear outcomes, clear endpoints. Project structure fits.

Staff augmentation enters when scope is harder to define upfront — when the client's team is building something new alongside ours, when the work is exploratory, when the duration is known but the deliverables aren't.

Managed services enter once the architecture has stabilized and the work shifts from building to operating. CCMS administration, publishing pipelines, governance enforcement, ongoing content-model evolution — SLA-bounded, recurring, no natural endpoint.

A long-running client relationship usually moves through all three. The right model isn't a property of the client. It's a property of where the work is in its own lifecycle.

A typical client journey
Project-Based
IA refactor · migration · pipeline build
Staff Augmentation
CCMS rollout · author training · client-led extensions
Managed Services
CCMS administration · publishing operation · governance

Illustrative. Actual durations and transitions vary per engagement — some clients skip a model, some stay in one indefinitely, some run two in parallel. The pattern is the point, not the timing.

When you’d pick each.

The model follows the work. Here are the buyer-side phrases that point to each — phrases real procurement and engineering leads recognize in their own situation.

Project-Based.

  1. “We have a clear deliverable and need a fixed price.”

    Bounded scope, defined acceptance criteria, procurement comfortable with a firm SOW. Project structure de-risks both sides — you know what you're getting, we know what we're delivering.

  2. “We need this done by a fixed date.”

    Regulatory deadline, product launch, contract expiration. Fixed-fee structure with milestone payments concentrates execution against a schedule everyone has agreed to in writing.

  3. “We've tried twice with other vendors. We need someone to actually finish.”

    Failed migrations and stalled IA refactors usually fail because scope was unclear or constantly changing. A project SOW with explicit acceptance criteria fixes both.

Staff Augmentation.

  1. “We have the strategy. We need execution capacity.”

    Internal team owns the direction. We supply senior specialists who work to your plan, your timelines, your standards. Best when you know the work but not the headcount.

  2. “Headcount freeze. We can't hire but we can contract.”

    Common at calendar boundaries and during reorgs. Contract spend lives under a different budget line than FTE additions; an Order Form bridges what hiring can't.

  3. “Scope is going to evolve. We need flexibility.”

    When the work is exploratory or the architecture is being discovered week-to-week, a fixed-scope SOW becomes a change-order treadmill. T&M staffing carries the uncertainty.

Managed Services.

  1. “We don't have the staff to operate this in-house.”

    CCMS administration, schema governance, publishing-pipeline ops — these are functions, not projects. Hiring for them is hard; running them through SLA is straightforward.

  2. “We need SLA on publishing. Authors can't wait when something breaks.”

    When the pipeline is critical-path for authors and content shipping is on a daily or weekly cadence, response-time targets are the right contractual mechanism.

  3. “The architecture is stable. We need someone to keep it running.”

    After the build is done, the work shifts to operating, evolving, and supporting. That's a different commercial structure than the project that built it.

Sample Content Assessment

Tell us about the work. We'll recommend the engagement model that fits and return a representative document — SOW, Order Form, or SLA — so you can see exactly what would land in your inbox.

Submit a sample →