
There is no single right way to engage a development team. The model that suits a fixed, well-understood piece of work is a poor fit for a product that will change as you learn from it.
These are the arrangements we use most. We will tell you which one we think fits your situation, including when the answer is that you do not need us yet.
A defined deliverable for an agreed price and timeline. This works when the requirements are genuinely settled and unlikely to move.
It is the wrong model for exploratory work: pinning scope down early means paying for changes through variations rather than building the right thing.
Ongoing delivery against a roadmap rather than a fixed specification, with priorities reviewed as the product and its users teach you things.
Suits products that will keep evolving, where the goal is a rate of useful change rather than a single handover.
A team working solely on your product, with consistent people who build up knowledge of your domain instead of re-learning it every engagement.
Typically the most cost-effective arrangement once work is continuous rather than project-shaped.
Adding engineers to a team you already have, working to your process and your standards.
Useful when you have the direction and the delivery capacity is the constraint.
Short, bounded pieces of work: an audit, a technical review, a specific fix or a second opinion before a decision.
Often the most sensible first engagement, for both sides.
An ongoing arrangement covering capacity for development, testing and release, without hiring and carrying a permanent team.
Where you know the shape of the gap, we provide by role: frontend, backend, full-stack and mobile engineers, along with QA, design and DevOps.
People are proposed individually and you decide. We would rather you turned someone down than accepted a poor fit.
Tell us what you are trying to do and we will tell you honestly whether we are the right people for it.
Get in touch