Technical advisory
A second opinion from people who will have to live with the answer.
The problem
What usually brings people here.
A decision is in front of you — a rewrite, a vendor, an architecture, an acquisition's codebase — and everyone with an opinion also has a stake in the answer. You want a read from someone who will have to live with being wrong about it.
What we do
How the work actually runs.
A short engagement, usually one to three weeks: we read the code, talk to the people who maintain it, and write down what we actually think, including where we are uncertain. You get a written recommendation with the reasoning, the option we rejected and why, and the cost of being wrong in each direction.
How this runs
Design, develop, refine.
Design
Two to four weeks. We scope with the engineers who will build it, so the estimate comes from the people held to it.
Develop
Two-week increments, demoed to you, shipped behind flags. You see working software in week three, not a status deck.
Refine
The squad stays. Lead time comes down, the backlog gets shorter, and the same people know why every decision was made.
Proof lives on the work page.
We publish numbers per engagement, cleared by that client, rather than per service line. What is written up there is what we are allowed to show.
Also in Teams & Delivery
Related services.
Start a conversation
Tell us what you are trying to ship.
You will get a reply from an engineer, not a form handler. If we are not the right firm for it, we will say so and tell you who is.