> The main point of the proposal was always clear up front. I was not the one deciding on KPI's it was a joint choice.
Which is exactly the parent's issue with their statement "I always make it clear". Many rev share negotiations break down quickly due to the nature of these deal:
- The profit maximizing buyer of said services has little incentive to pay you your "fair" share, EVEN if they do in fact create more revenue because of said services effect. They'll find every way to pay you as little as possible within the bounds of your contract.
- A buyer of said services rarely will rarely let you into their financial systems to validate. Even if they do, financials notoriously are easy to manipulate/game (ever heard of Adj. EBITDA?). The overhead of financial clarity is rarely worth the headache. Heck, most businesses internal operations rarely can create clear ROI their projects when they used internal resources much less using external resources.
- There are so many hidden variables that it's nearly impossible to control for your impact. Let's say you help reduce a company's EC2 instances from 10 to 7. Savings...great! Now the company grows and they need 8 EC2 instances. Did you still save them money? Down the rabbit hole we go...
I get what you're saying but you're living in a vacuum if you think you can universally demand that type of contract. They're possible but require the stars to align.
Note - I'm talking specifically about professional services / consulting work.
The main point of the proposal was always clear up front. I was not the one deciding on KPI's it was a joint choice.
For the SAME business applications and SAME business processes:
- At the end of a quarter you either spend less OR more with your infra costs including required teams.
- At the end of a quarter you either have more uptime OR less uptime.
- At the end of a quarter you either spend more on licenses OR less.
Some KPI's are somewhat objective.