The short answer
Expect to pay for onboarding. The developer is working on your codebase, and asking a supplier to fund that means either they price it into the rate or they take shortcuts on it.
What you can legitimately do is make it shorter. A documented environment and a prepared first task cut ramp-up more than any commercial negotiation will.
Why free onboarding is a bad deal
- Suppliers price it in anyway, so you pay through the rate
- It creates pressure to look productive before understanding the system
- It discourages asking questions, which is exactly what ramp-up needs
- It penalises the supplier for your undocumented setup
- It makes short engagements uneconomic for them, so you get worse options
The third point is the real cost. Someone under pressure to justify their first week will guess rather than ask, and you will find the results in review.
What shortens it
| Preparation | Effect |
|---|---|
| Access sorted before day one | Saves days, costs nothing |
| One-command environment setup | Largest single saving |
| A prepared first task with context | Productive work in day one or two |
| A page answering the usual questions | Cuts the interruption load |
| A named person hosting them | Stops the drift that wastes week one |
All five are things you want anyway. Every new permanent hire benefits from exactly the same preparation.
Reasonable commercial arrangements
Some suppliers offer a reduced rate for the first week, or a short paid trial before a longer commitment. Both are fair and worth asking about.
What is not reasonable is expecting a supplier to absorb weeks of unpaid onboarding, particularly where the length of it is determined by your documentation rather than by their people.
Longer engagements amortise it
- Ramp-up is roughly fixed regardless of engagement length.
- A two-week engagement is mostly ramp-up and rarely worth either side's time.
- Three months amortises it reasonably.
- Six months or more makes it a minor cost.
- A sequence of short engagements pays it repeatedly, which is the expensive pattern.
This is the strongest argument for fewer, longer engagements over a rotating cast, and it is worth weighing against the flexibility that shorter ones give you.
Measure it so you can improve it
Note how long it takes each new person to merge their first change and to work without frequent help. Those two numbers are a direct measure of your onboarding.
If they are not improving between engagements, the friction is on your side, and fixing it is cheaper than negotiating about it.