Each model below includes who it is best for, what it looks like in practice, and what the key trade-offs are.
One or more senior engineers embedded in your team
You hire one or more senior developers from our team - they integrate directly into your sprint process, attend your standups, use your tools, and work to your sprint schedule. They are not a vendor you manage at arm's length. They are part of your team, for as long as you need them.
A complete product team - developers, PM, QA, and design
A full cross-functional team dedicated to your product - frontend, backend, mobile, QA, a project manager, and design if needed. They work exclusively on your product for the duration of the engagement. You get the output of a complete engineering team without the cost, time, and overhead of building one.
A defined deliverable with a clear cost and timeline
The scope is defined upfront. The cost is agreed upfront. The timeline is committed upfront. We deliver the agreed product - no hourly billing, no scope creep surprises, no invoice that does not match what you expected. Best for founders who know what they want to build and need a reliable delivery without open-ended billing.
Flexible hours billed against actual work done
When requirements evolve frequently - as they do in early-stage products or complex enterprise projects - a fixed scope can become a constraint. Time and material billing means you pay for the actual work done, with full transparency on hours and tasks. Best used when the destination is clear but the exact path will adapt as you learn.
These three questions narrow it down for almost every situation.
Dedicated developer model. One or more engineers embedded into your existing team and sprint process.
Full dedicated team model. A complete cross-functional team built around your product requirements.
Fixed scope, fixed price. You get cost certainty and a committed timeline.
Time and material. Full flexibility to adapt priorities as the product evolves.
Regardless of which engagement structure you choose, every project gets the same non-negotiables.
Your idea and your business details are protected from the first conversation - regardless of which model you eventually choose.
Every line of code written becomes yours. No proprietary lock-in. No code withheld. No dependency created to keep you returning.
Every active project gets weekly demo calls and shared project tracking. You always know what is being built and what is coming next.
Every cost is agreed before work begins. No hidden fees. No scope added silently. Change requests handled through a formal process.
One point of contact who knows your project. Not a rotating account manager - the same person throughout the engagement.
Architecture documentation, codebase notes, API specs, and a structured handover session. Another team can pick this up without asking us how it works.
The engagement structure changes. The onboarding process does not.
We ask about your project, your team, your timeline, and your budget. You ask whatever you need to. We recommend the right engagement model and explain exactly why. No pitch. No pressure.
We document requirements, propose a team composition, and outline timelines. For dedicated models - developer profiles are shared. For fixed-scope - a detailed estimate is prepared. Everything in writing before any commitment.
NDA signed. Contract issued with clear scope, pricing, and IP ownership terms. No ambiguity. Nothing to find later that was not discussed upfront.
Team introduced. Communication channels set up - Slack, Teams, or your preference. Project tracker shared. First sprint planned. First demo call scheduled. You know exactly who is doing what from day one.
Weekly sprints. Weekly demos. Continuous delivery. You see progress every week and control what gets prioritised in each sprint. The engagement continues for as long as it creates value - and ends cleanly when it does not.
Yes - and this happens more often than you would expect. A client might start with a fixed-scope MVP and then move to a dedicated team model once the product is live and iterating. Or start with time and material during discovery and move to fixed scope once requirements are clear. We structure transitions cleanly - the codebase and team continuity are maintained regardless of which model you move to.
For dedicated developer and full team models - one month minimum, monthly rolling after that. For fixed scope - no minimum duration, the project runs until the agreed deliverable is complete. For time and material - no minimum, though we recommend at least four weeks to establish a working rhythm before assessing output.
For dedicated developer engagements - developer profiles are shared within 48 hours, and the selected developer can start within one week of the contract being signed. For full team or project-based engagements - kickoff typically happens within 7–10 days of contract signature. Discovery, scoping, and NDA can run in parallel to minimise the gap between decision and start.
We have a replacement process. If after the first two weeks a dedicated developer is not the right fit - technically or in terms of working style - we replace them at no additional cost. For team engagements, the same applies to individual team members. We have never had a client end an engagement over team quality, but the protection exists because we take it seriously.
Yes - without exception. Every engagement model transfers full IP and codebase ownership to the client. This is not a premium feature or something negotiated per project. It is a standard term across every contract we sign.
No commitment required. No sales pitch. Just a direct conversation about what you are building and the most effective structure to build it.
NDA signed before details are shared. Response within 24 hours.
Response in 24 hours
NDA before we talk
Full code ownership
