Dedicated Teams
A standing squad that stays long enough to learn your business. Engineers, QA and DevOps, working only on your work, for a programme rather than a project. The most expensive shape we offer and occasionally the only one that fits.
You set direction. We run the delivery.
With a dedicated team most of the delivery moves to us, which is what you are paying for. Direction does not, and should not.
A team is a commitment, in both directions.
The argument for a dedicated team is accumulated context. The argument against is that you pay for it from week one, including the weeks when there is less to do.
The lead is picked first
A dedicated team is only as good as whoever holds its standards. We choose that person before anyone else and you interview them like a hire.
Specialists join the same squad
QA and DevOps sit inside the team rather than being a service it queues for. That is most of the speed difference.
The team stays together
Rotating people through defeats the purpose. Churn on our side is our problem to absorb, not yours to re-onboard.
Scaled down without drama
If the programme shrinks, so does the team, on 30 days notice. We would rather resize than quietly bill for idle seats.
Three ways to work with us. This is one.
Same bench, different shape. Pick the wrong one and you pay for coordination you did not need.
A team is often more than the problem needs.
Good fit
- A programme of work with twelve months of visible roadmap.
- Several workstreams that would otherwise contend for one engineer.
- You need QA and DevOps but not enough to hire them.
- Domain knowledge takes months to build and you keep losing it.
Poor fit
- One well-defined project. Augmentation is cheaper and fits better.
- The roadmap is uncertain. You will pay for idle capacity.
- You have not got someone to set direction for them.
Before you book the call.
Yes, and we usually recommend it. Two or three people for the first six weeks, then scale once the roadmap proves itself. Starting at eight is how teams end up with people looking for work to justify themselves.
Yes. That is the definition, and it is what separates this from augmentation with extra steps. Nobody on a dedicated team is split across accounts.
Their tech lead, against your roadmap. You set priority, they handle sequencing and standards. If you would rather manage them directly, that is augmentation and it costs less.
Yours throughout, in your repository, with documentation written as part of the work rather than at the end. A team that leaves without leaving its reasoning behind has not finished.
Tell us the programme, not the headcount.
Thirty minutes. If a team is more than you need, we will say so and propose the smaller shape.