The architecture and engineering industry has always been built on expertise. For decades, we have translated knowledge, experience, and creativity into deliverables that help clients solve increasingly complex challenges. Traditionally, that value has been monetized through one of two primary models: time and materials (timecard-based billing) or lump sum fees.
As artificial intelligence and AI agents become integrated into engineering workflows, an important question emerges: If technology allows us to produce better work in less time, how should that value be captured?
In Defense of the Humble Timecard
Before we throw timecards under the bus, let’s acknowledge why they exist.
Time-and-materials contracts exist for good reasons. They provide transparency, flexibility, and risk management for clients, particularly on projects where scope is evolving or difficult to define. Owners gain visibility into where resources are being spent and maintain greater control over budgets and priorities.
For public-sector projects, regulatory requirements and procurement rules frequently make timecard-based contracts the most practical approach. For private clients managing large, complex programs, these contracts offer assurance that charges equate to actual effort rather than assumptions made months earlier.
In many ways, timecard billing is the consulting equivalent of a utility meter. Clients pay for what they use.
The challenge, however, is that pure timecard models can unintentionally discourage innovation. If revenue is directly tied to hours worked, reducing those hours through automation can appear to reduce revenue as well.
That is not a technology problem. It is a business model problem.
Why Lump Sum Loves Innovation
Lump sum contracts create a different dynamic.
When a consultant is compensated based on delivering an outcome rather than recording hours, efficiency becomes a competitive advantage. Investments in technology, process improvements, and automation directly benefit both the consultant and the client.
If an engineering team can produce a higher-quality design in 20% less time through the use of AI agents, the client receives faster delivery and potentially better quality, while the consultant retains the value generated through that efficiency.
This model rewards innovation.
Historically, firms invested in better CAD platforms, BIM workflows, computational design tools, and project management systems. AI agents represent the next evolution of that journey.
Enter the AI Agent
An AI agent is not simply another software tool. It is a digital teammate that can perform repetitive tasks, analyze data, review standards, generate options, and assist engineers in making better decisions.
Think of it less as replacing an engineer and more as giving every engineer a team of highly motivated interns who never sleep, never complain about redlines, and somehow enjoy reviewing specifications.
The engineer remains responsible for judgment, creativity, client communication, and accountability. The AI agent simply helps them operate at a higher level.
A New Commercial Model
As AI adoption accelerates, our industry should begin discussing a new commercial framework.
Why not introduce an AI agent rate card?
Such a rate could include:
- The underlying AI processing and token costs.
- Ongoing maintenance, training, and updating of the agent.
- Validation and quality assurance processes.
- The value of the productivity gains achieved.
- Access to proprietary firm knowledge and expertise embedded within the agent.
Clients already pay for specialized software, modeling platforms, simulation tools, and cloud computing resources. AI agents are rapidly becoming another professional tool that enhances project delivery.
The value is not in the tokens consumed. The value is in the years of engineering expertise, standards, workflows, and institutional knowledge embedded within the system. With this in mind, I’ll start the conversation by proposing $50/hour for a premium AI charge.
Continuing the Conversation
Will public and private owners immediately embrace the AI agent billing premium? Probably not.
Defining the premium and what team members we add it to are for the next blog post. But every major industry shift begins with a conversation. Building owners once questioned BIM, digital twins, and cloud collaboration platforms. Today, many consider them standard practice.
The same evolution will occur with AI.
The firms that start educating clients today will be best positioned to lead tomorrow. Rather than viewing AI as a threat to professional services, we should view it as an opportunity to deliver higher quality, faster responses, and greater value.
After all, clients are not buying hours. They are buying outcomes.
If AI helps us achieve better outcomes, then both the client and the consultant should benefit from the value created.
So, my industry colleagues, it seems like a good time for a chat.