September 10, 2026
Reader question re Scoping First is Backward
List member TK sent in a follow-up question to one of my previous messages, Scoping First is Backward).
In that message, I said scoping first is a bad way to set a price and offered this alternative:
A much more profitable way to calculate fixed prices is this:
- Uncover the buyer’s desired future state.
- Estimate their perceived value of the future state.
- Set a price that is a fraction of their perceived value.
- Design a scope you would gladly deliver for that price.
TK asked:
I’m curious about this one. I buy the conclusion, though it sounds like you can say you’d deliver some part of the desired future state because that’s what you can deliver for the price. Trivial example - if someone wants to build a house and has a budget for just the foundation being done right, if I understand you correctly you provide them with scope of building the foundation, but then are you solving their problem? They are closer to having a home, but you aren’t delivering it fully. How do you reconcile those two?
In this question, TK is falling into the (very common) trap of confusing a deliverable with a desired future state.
A house is a deliverable, it is not a desired future state.
So...
If someone asked me to build them a house but only had enough money for a foundation, I’d ask why they wanted the house in the first place and then propose an alternative solution they could actually afford.
Yours,
—J