We researched 48+ alternatives. Nobody combines OSINT research, product concepts, and white-label delivery at this price point. So we built the category.
Before building Model T, we mapped 48+ existing service providers across management consulting, design agencies, contract engineering firms, applied research institutes, and sales intelligence platforms. None of them offer the specific combination that B2B hardware companies need: company-specific OSINT research, technically credible product concepts, white-labeled delivery, and a pay-on-acceptance pricing model.
Management consultancies (McKinsey, BCG, Bain) deliver strategic recommendations but not engineering concepts. Design agencies (frog, IDEO, Designit) create product visions but require a brief and charge EUR 300-800K. Contract engineering firms build products but expect specifications upfront. Applied research institutes (Fraunhofer, TNO, IMEC) conduct feasibility studies but operate on academic timelines. Sales intelligence platforms (ZoomInfo, Apollo) provide contact data but not product insights.
Each of these solves part of the problem. None solves the whole problem: taking a target account list and delivering ready-to-present product concepts within two weeks. Concept-as-a-Service (CaaS) is the category we created to fill this gap.
Concept-as-a-Service has four defining characteristics. First, a defined scope: you provide 5-7 target accounts and optionally a focus area. We deliver 2-3 product concepts per account with architecture, BOM, competitive positioning, and go-to-market angle. The scope does not creep because the deliverables are specified upfront.
Second, a fixed price. From EUR 15,000 per engagement, covering the full pipeline from research to delivered concepts. No hourly billing. No scope change negotiations. No surprise invoices. The price is known before work begins.
Third, pay-on-acceptance. You review the delivered concepts. If they meet the quality standards agreed at kickoff, you pay. If they do not, we rework them at no additional cost until they do. This eliminates the risk of paying for work that does not meet expectations.
Fourth, a repeatable methodology. The 18-step pipeline with 8 specialized roles runs the same way every time. Quality gates at each stage ensure consistent output. This is not a bespoke consulting engagement that depends on which partner leads the project. It is a systematic process that produces predictable results.
Understanding the pricing landscape requires comparing apples to oranges, because no existing category delivers the same output. But the comparison is instructive for budget holders who need to justify the investment.
Management consulting firms (MBB tier) charge EUR 250,000-500,000 for a strategy engagement that lasts 6-12 weeks. You receive recommendations, frameworks, and slide decks. You do not receive engineering concepts, BOMs, or architecture diagrams. A single McKinsey engagement with a 6-person team costs approximately $500K per month.
Design agencies charge EUR 300,000-800,000 for a product development engagement. They produce beautiful concepts, user research, and prototypes, but they require a detailed brief to start and do not perform competitive OSINT research. Contract engineering firms provide feasibility studies for EUR 50,000-125,000, but they need a defined problem statement and do not white-label their work. Applied research institutes like Fraunhofer deliver technical assessments for EUR 20,000-80,000, but on academic timelines of 3-6 months.
The traditional consulting model charges for time, not outcomes. You pay whether the deliverable is useful or not. This misaligns incentives: the provider benefits from longer engagements and scope expansion, while the client benefits from fast, focused results.
Pay-on-acceptance flips this dynamic. The provider only gets paid when the client accepts the deliverable. This means the provider is incentivized to understand the client's actual needs, deliver concepts that are genuinely useful, and hit quality standards on the first attempt. Rework is the provider's cost, not the client's.
For procurement teams, pay-on-acceptance simplifies the approval process. The risk is bounded: you either receive deliverables that meet the agreed standards, or you do not pay. There is no scenario where you pay for substandard work and then pay again for rework. This model works because the Model T pipeline has been validated through real engagements with a 75% positive response rate.
Market Development Fund (MDF) budgets are the primary funding mechanism for semiconductor vendor channel programs. Typical MDF allocations range from $5,000-50,000 per partner per quarter, depending on tier level and performance.
Model T pricing is deliberately designed to fit within standard MDF budgets. At from EUR 15,000 per engagement, a single CaaS project can be funded from a quarterly MDF allocation without requiring special budget approval. This matters because MDF budgets are "use it or lose it," and many channel partners struggle to deploy them effectively.
For vendor channel managers, CaaS provides a measurable return on MDF investment. Instead of funding generic marketing activities (booth presence, email campaigns, webinars) with uncertain ROI, MDF funds a specific deliverable: 2-3 product concepts tailored to named target accounts. The ROI is measurable in meetings booked, proposals sent, and design-ins won.
An internal team capable of OSINT research, stakeholder profiling, competitive analysis, system architecture, BOM estimation, and go-to-market packaging would need 3-5 specialists. At European salary levels, that is EUR 300-500K per year before overhead. Model T provides the same output on-demand for a fraction of the cost, without hiring risk or ramp-up time.
Quality standards are defined at kickoff and typically include: concept addresses a real, documented pain point; architecture is technically feasible and reviewed by a domain expert; BOM is based on real component pricing; competitive positioning includes at least 3 named alternatives. If any standard is not met, we rework at no cost.
The Model T pipeline was designed for hardware and embedded systems companies where product concepts require architecture, BOM, and manufacturing considerations. Software-only companies can benefit from the OSINT research and competitive analysis components, but the full concept creation is most valuable when the deliverable includes hardware architecture and cost estimation.