Growing medium-sized companies
Software development for growing companies
You know what to build and roughly what it is worth. What you do not have is six months to hire four engineers, or the appetite to hand a critical system to whoever is available.
- +500Delivered sprints
- CETSame working day
- SprintScale up or down
What this stage needs
Capacity that doesn't cost you control
Speed without a hiring cycle
Senior engineers from an existing team, onboarded in weeks rather than recruited over quarters.
Your standards, enforced
We work to your review process, test expectations and definition of done, not a parallel one of ours.
Reversible commitment
Adjust capacity at sprint boundaries. Far cheaper to unwind than a permanent hire, in cost and in morale.
Legacy systems handled
Most growth work runs into something old and load-bearing. That is normal, and we have done it before.
Knowledge that stays with you
Documentation and tests as we go, so capability accrues to your organisation rather than to ours.
Room for your team to lead
Your engineers stay the architects of their own product. We add hands and specific expertise, not a takeover.
The failure mode we watch for
Outsourcing works right up until nobody in-house understands the system
The pattern is a familiar one: a supplier delivers competently for a year, the relationship ends, and it emerges that the only people who understood a critical service are no longer involved.
We design against that deliberately. Your engineers review our pull requests. Documentation is written as work happens rather than at exit. Architecture decisions get recorded with their reasoning, so a future team inherits the why and not just the what.
It makes us easier to replace, which is deliberate. A partner you retain because leaving would be difficult is not a partner worth retaining.
Common questions
What scaling teams ask us
How do you work with our existing engineers?
As colleagues in the same process: shared backlog, shared review standards, shared stand-up if that suits you. The arrangement that fails is a separate team with a separate backlog, because the integration cost lands on your leads.
Is this cheaper than hiring?
Per hour, usually not. Per outcome, frequently yes, because the comparison includes recruitment fees, the months a role sits open, ramp-up time, and the cost of a mis-hire.
It is also reversible, which has real option value when the roadmap is less certain than the board deck suggests.
What about our legacy system nobody wants to touch?
That is often the most valuable work we do. We start by making it safe to change: characterisation tests, reproducible builds and documented behaviour, before changing anything. A rewrite is a last resort rather than an opening proposal.
Can you help us hire our own team instead?
Yes, and we will tell you when that is the better path. We can run interviews, define the roles, and hand over progressively as your hires land.
How do you report progress to non-technical stakeholders?
Working software at each sprint boundary, plus a written summary of what shipped, what moved and what is at risk. Clear enough for a board without becoming a separate reporting workstream.
What's stuck in your roadmap?
Tell us the bottleneck and we will propose the smallest team that clears it.