Capacity that contributes to coherence
Engineers who understand your codebase, conventions, and context. Integrated standup, shared backlog, one delivery rhythm.
When engineering capacity isn't the problem,
Coherence is what scales delivery, not headcount.
We build engineering teams that integrate with yours, not against it.
One team. One backlog. One delivery rhythm.
Engineers who understand your codebase, conventions, and context. Integrated standup, shared backlog, one delivery rhythm.
More throughput without the spike in production incidents that usually follows headcount growth.
Annual contract with defined scope. No surprise rate increases. No hidden onboarding cost amortised across hours.
Engagements designed to favour engineer continuity. Where rotation does happen, replacement is planned and overlapped, not panicked.
Capacity grows. Output doesn't. The math doesn't lie — but it's measuring the wrong thing.
Three engineers arrive. Their CVs check out. Onboarding takes a month. Six weeks in, they're shipping at half speed because they don't know the codebase, the conventions, the customer context, or the political reality. Twelve weeks in, the engagement is "working" — but the existing team is spending half its time supervising the new one. Headcount tripled on paper. Effective capacity went up by a third. The vendor reports utilisation; nobody reports coherence.
Months, not weeks. And usually nobody schedules the recovery.
Their velocity drops while the augmented team ramps up.
Skills match. Fit doesn't.
Quarter-over-quarter rotation never lets the onboarding investment compound.
It becomes a coherence question.
That's where staff augmentation stops being a capacity question.
Each one shows up in engineering reviews well before anyone formally questions the model.
Capacity doubled on paper. Output grew by a third. The math doesn't lie.
Existing engineers spend significant time coordinating with the augmented team. The internal team's velocity drops.
Quarter-over-quarter turnover means onboarding never finishes. The CVs change; the gap stays.
The augmented team's code starts to look different from the internal team's. Conventions diverge.
Stand-ups become reports rather than conversations. Coordination work moves to async written form, then nowhere.
Their dashboard shows engineers billing at 95%. Your engineering output doesn't match.
These aren't recruitment problems. They are coherence problems. The vendor optimised the wrong metric.
Staff-aug fails in patterns. The patterns are coherence problems, not engineering-quality problems.
Engineers selected by skills on paper, not by fit with the existing team's context.
No structured ramp. The new team learns by accident over months instead of weeks.
The augmented team has its own work queue separate from the internal team's. Priorities diverge.
Without shared conventions and code review, the augmented team's code starts looking different.
The client has to manage individuals across a vendor relationship. Time disappears.
Engineers rotate off without overlap. Replacement starts onboarding from zero each time.
Vendor reports billing hours, not outcomes. The contract incentivises the wrong thing.
Staff augmentation failure looks like an engineering-quality problem. It is almost always a coherence problem in disguise.
Every staff-aug engagement that disappointed shows some version of the same mistake.
Engineers were treated as units of capacity, not as members of a team.
When the engagement optimises for hours billed instead of outcomes delivered, the engineering work fragments. Onboarding becomes endless. Coherence erodes. Velocity caps at "we have more people now."
Capacity is rarely the constraint. Coherence is.
Four principles separate integrated dedicated teams from body-shop staffing.
Engineers selected for how they integrate with your team, not just for what their CV says. Client interviews are part of how the engagement works.
A defined ramp: codebase tour, convention review, customer context briefing, paired work, gradual ownership. Productive in weeks, not months.
Shared backlog, shared codebase, shared standup, shared code review. The team is one team, not two.
Engagements structured to favour engineer continuity. Where rotation is necessary, replacement is planned with overlap calibrated to the transition timeline. Continuity is a designed-for outcome agreed per engagement.
Four blocks: internal proof, the operating cadence, the team integration architecture, and where this work shows up.
Standup with your team. Shared work in the same backlog. Coordination is verbal and continuous.
Mutual PR review across teams. Retro and planning shared, not parallel.
Output, not utilisation. Retention check. Skill-development review.
Team composition reviewed. Scope adjusted. Strategic alignment with your engineering leadership.
Codebase tour, convention review, customer context briefing, paired work, gradual ownership. Productive in weeks.
A tech lead / delivery manager coordinates with your engineering leadership. You manage outcomes, not individuals.
The same governance, observability, IaC, and review standards we ship on Implementation engagements. Discipline is part of the team.
Your team on one side, our team on the other, integrated delivery in the middle. Around it all, the discipline layer — architecture, governance, code review, observability — that keeps the engineering coherent across organisational boundaries.
Four outcomes plus the six numbers we measure across a dedicated-teams engagement.
Headcount growth shows up in output, not just on the org chart.
Engineers are productive within weeks; the second-time-onboarding cycle doesn't repeat each quarter.
Conventions hold. Code review is mutual. The product stays coherent.
Replacement is planned with overlap where the engineer's transition timeline allows. The engagement doesn't restart every six months.
Internal-team supervision tax — hours per week your existing engineers spend coordinating with the dedicated team — is the single most informative number. When it climbs, coherence is failing. When it stays low, the engagement is working.
A dedicated-teams engagement is the right move when you have an existing engineering team and internal codebase, you have a defined product or platform context to onboard against, and leadership values integration over arbitrage on hourly rates.
It's too early when you want the cheapest engineers without integration overhead, there's no internal owner for cross-team coherence, or the product or codebase is too unstable to onboard against — in which case start with Implementation or System Rescue first.
12-month minimum annual contract with quarterly composition reviews. Onboarding is structured and ends in weeks. Engagements typically renew; many run multiple years.
Team scoped per workload. Client interviews encouraged. Selection for fit, not just CV match.
Codebase tour, convention review, customer context briefing, paired work, gradual ownership.
Shared backlog, shared standup, shared code review. Engineering management on our side coordinates with yours. Quarterly composition reviews.
Output, retention, scope adjustment, strategic alignment. Engagements typically renew.
Coherence isn't a soft skill. It's the operating discipline that determines whether added capacity actually delivers added velocity.
Six engineering non-negotiables. Each is the floor, not the ceiling.
Engineers chosen for integration potential, not just CV skills. Client interviews encouraged.
A defined ramp plan: codebase tour, convention review, customer context briefing, paired work, gradual ownership.
One backlog across teams. One daily standup. Coordination is verbal and continuous, not written and asynchronous.
Internal and dedicated team review each other's PRs. Conventions stay shared.
A tech lead / delivery manager handles team-level coordination so you manage outcomes, not individuals.
Engagements structured to favour engineer continuity. Where rotation happens, replacement is planned with overlap calibrated to the transition timeline. Overlap duration is agreed per engagement.
Direct answers for CTOs and engineering leaders looking past body-shop staffing.
Staff augmentation provides engineers on hourly contracts, typically selected by skill match and managed individually by the client. Dedicated teams provide an integrated engineering unit with structured onboarding, shared backlog, engineering management on our side, and a retention contract. The contract optimises for outcomes, not billable hours.
4 to 6 weeks per engineer for typical codebases. The structured ramp covers codebase tour, convention review, customer context, paired work, and gradual ownership. We start delivering before week 6 and the engineer's autonomy ramps over the next 4 to 8 weeks.
Per-engineer cost varies with seniority, skill mix, and engagement-management overhead. Multiply by team size. Concrete ranges are confirmed in the consultation conversation; we don't publish numbers on this page until they have leadership sign-off.
Common compositions: small product team (3 to 5: tech lead, 2 to 3 engineers, optional QA / design); cross-functional team (6 to 10: tech lead, backend + frontend mix, DevOps, QA, often a designer); multi-stream team (10+: multiple smaller teams under one engagement, with team-of-teams coordination). Composition is reviewed quarterly.
Yes. We encourage it. Selection-for-fit is part of how the engagement actually works. The interview process is collaborative, not gated.
Replacement is part of the engagement. We aim to address fit issues within the first 8 weeks; structural mismatches we own. Specific commercial terms around replacement-onboarding cost are agreed in the engagement contract.
Yes. Integrated working is the default. Engineers operate in your codebase, your conventions, your tools, your cloud, your standup. We bring discipline and capacity; you keep ownership and context.
Common engagement type. Odoo developers, Python engineers, frontend engineers, and DevOps specialists composed per the client's Odoo work. We are an Odoo silver partner; the engineers are working in the platform we deliver across other engagement types.
12 months for dedicated-teams engagements. Shorter engagements default to project-based models — Implementation, Modernization & Migration, or System Rescue — where the scope, not the team, is the contract. If you need ongoing operational discipline rather than capacity, that's Long-Term Support.
Yes, with notice. Quarterly composition reviews are part of the engagement. Up-ramps happen with structured onboarding for new engineers; down-ramps respect engineer commitments and typically run a 60-day adjustment.
Dedicated teams differ from staff augmentation by optimising for outcomes rather than billable hours. Engineers integrate with the client's team, work in a shared backlog, and operate under shared engineering management.
The constraint on engineering velocity is rarely capacity. It is coherence — shared codebase, shared conventions, shared context. Adding headcount without coherence increases coordination cost faster than throughput.
A dedicated-teams engagement is structured as an annual contract with quarterly composition reviews. Onboarding is 4 to 6 weeks per engineer. Team sizes typically range from 3 to 12 engineers depending on workload.
No body-shop pitch. Fit-first.