Dedicated development teams
We employ, house and support the people. You set direction. The lead handles the day to day, which is why this model needs the least management time from you of anything we offer.
Book a 30-minute scoping call Compare all five models
This is our most common arrangement, and the one both of our largest accounts grew from.
| Roadmap and priorities What gets built | You |
|---|---|
| Day to day delivery Standups, blockers, quality | The lead |
| Hiring and replacement Including the cost of it | Us |
| Contracts, payroll, equipment Employment admin | Us |
| The code and the IP From the first commit | You |
Is this the right model
It suits long-running product work. It suits short defined projects badly, and it is overkill for a single skill gap.
Choose something else when
We will point you at the right one rather than sell the one we prefer.
Choose this when
Both of our largest engagements are this, and both started with a lead plus a few senior people.
Plain definitions
The first decides whether to outsource at all. The second decides which kind.
It is a group employed by us, working only on your product, with a lead who runs the day to day. You set direction and priorities. We handle recruitment, contracts, equipment, holiday cover and the fact that people occasionally leave.
The word dedicated is the important one. The same engineers stay on your product rather than being moved between accounts, which is what makes the knowledge accumulate instead of resetting every quarter.
Hiring your own people wins on permanence and on cultural depth. It costs you a recruitment function, a payroll entity wherever they sit, and months before the first person starts. In a market you do not know, that timeline is optimistic more often than not.
A dedicated team is faster to start and easier to stop. The honest trade is that we hold the employment relationship, so if you want the team to become yours eventually, agree the transfer price and date at the start rather than when you want to leave.
What is included
What people ask us to staff
Most requests are one of these. The first two are how both of our largest engagements began.
Our work
Case study, Germany
A cloud-native software firm came to us after another vendor left a project with poor code quality and missed dates. We started small and senior, stabilised the build, then grew into a dedicated core team plus an on-call group for urgent work. Every engineer worked in English directly with German product owners.
Commercials and governance
We quote against the role list rather than publishing a rate card, because a lead and a mid-level engineer are not the same number and pretending otherwise helps nobody.
Who does the work
Twenty engineers means we can staff your team properly and we would turn down a request for thirty people next month. Firms with a bench say yes to that and then explain the quality afterwards.
You interview everyone. We screen and shortlist, you take the final call, and if you say no to all three we go back and find more.
How we work
The models differ in one thing: how much of the management you hand over. Everything else, including who owns the code, is the same in all five.
Changing model later is normal. Augmentation into a dedicated team is the common direction, and the people stay.
Engineers join your team and work inside your process, your board and your code review.
02
A team that works only on your product, with a lead on our side running delivery.
A long-term engineering site under your standards, where we carry recruitment, HR, payroll and equipment.
04
One price for a scope that is genuinely settled, with the overrun carried by us.
Everything in the centre model, with the whole team moving into your own Vietnamese entity on an agreed date.
FAQs
A lead plus two or three engineers. Below that you are buying augmentation, and you should pay for it as augmentation rather than for a structure you are not using.
Leads and generalist engineers usually fill within weeks. Niche roles take longer, and we give you a role-by-role plan with dates before you sign.
Tell us early. We replace them and carry the recruitment cost. Waiting three months to raise it helps nobody.
Yes, though it is worth being explicit about how much capacity goes to support, or new work quietly stops.
Yes, through the centre and BOT route, with the price and date agreed in advance.
Your company, from the first commit.
Monthly per role, quoted against the list you need rather than from a published table, because the mix of seniority drives the number more than the headcount does. Send the roles and the start date and you get a real figure. If you would rather buy an outcome than a team, the fixed price model above is the one to look at.
Somewhere past the first year, in our experience. Augmentation looks cheaper per person because you absorb the management, the recruitment churn and the cover when somebody is ill. A dedicated team moves those to us and charges for them. Below six months augmentation usually wins, and we will say so rather than sell you the larger arrangement.
We replace them and carry the handover, which is the difference between this and hiring your own people in a market you do not know. What we cannot replace instantly is the knowledge, so we insist on written documentation and paired work from the start, which slows the first month slightly and saves the sixth.
Role by role, with dates and a monthly cost, before anyone asks you to sign anything.
