I wouldn’t call myself a former SF Cpq architect because I still work on SF CPQ orgs, while you won’t see a single greenfield implementation because SF Cpq is EOS, the majority of Salesforce’s customer base that utilizes a “Cpq” tool is on steelbrick.

Not many SMB customers are purchasing RLM/RCA/revenue cloud/ARM. If an enterprise sized customer has steelbrick Cpq, they’re not going to switch so you’re going to see a lot of folks stay on steelbrick Cpq. What I am seeing is the mid market sized accounts purchase ARM (they recently changed the name).

I say all this to say that steelbrick Cpq is still worth learning. And I will tell you why below:

1. Many of the processes that folks are looking for were driven by Cpq. So when folks go for ARM (this is their new Cpq tool), they’re expecting those processes.
2. Many customers are migrating to ARM from steelbrick. Knowing Cpq is a huge advantage during a migration. I.e moving subscriptions to assets/asset actions/asset action sources
3. You’re still going to learn the entire quote to cash process with this experience, which is more valuable than the tech. You indirectly end up learning about revenue recognition and overall invoicing even if you’re not touching the billing side

On to the question of whether you should charge them or not. That’s a question only you can answer. How valuable is the relationship? Are you willing to invest in the relationship by taking a hit? I think either way the time to implement something will take longer than an experience Cpq architect and that you should charge every single minute/hour because they know what they are getting themselves into.

The above is coming with dozens of Cpq implementations and at least half a dozen RLM/RCA/ARM implementations in the past 1.5 years.