Technology & Product
Engineering capacity that raises your bar.
Product engineering, platform teams, and technical due diligence for software companies — augmenting your team with people who work the way you already want to.
50+
Product teams supported
3x
Deploy frequency gain
40+
Diligence reviews
2 wks
To first commit
The pressure
What technology teams are actually dealing with
Hiring slower than the roadmap
A funded plan and an engineering market that cannot fill the roles fast enough, with contractors who need three months to become useful.
A platform that slows every team down
Build times, flaky tests, and manual release steps that quietly tax every squad in the organisation on every change.
Multi-tenancy retro-fitted under pressure
A product that grew from a single-customer deployment and now needs isolation, per-tenant configuration, and regional data residency.
Technical debt nobody can quantify
A widely shared belief that the codebase is a problem, with no evidence a board or an investor would find credible.
What we build
How we work with technology companies
As an extension of your team, inside your process — not as a walled-off outsourced project.
Product engineering pods
A cross-functional team working in your repositories, your board, and your standups, with a named tech lead who stays for the engagement.
- Your process, not ours
- Named consistent team
- Onboarded in two weeks
Platform & developer experience
Build, test, and release infrastructure treated as a product, measured by the time it saves every other team.
- Build time reduction
- Flaky test elimination
- Self-service environments
SaaS architecture
Multi-tenancy, per-tenant configuration, and regional data residency designed properly rather than patched in per customer.
- Tenant isolation models
- Data residency
- Per-tenant configuration
Scale & performance
Targeted work on the systems that are becoming the constraint, informed by profiling rather than by assumption.
- Profiling-led
- Load-test harness
- Cost per request
Technical due diligence
Independent assessment of architecture, practice, security, and team for investors and acquirers, delivered as evidence rather than opinion.
- Evidence-based findings
- Remediation costed
- Investor-ready format
Engineering enablement
Practice uplift — testing strategy, review culture, incident process — embedded by working alongside your team, not by training courses.
- Embedded coaching
- Practice documentation
- Measured improvement
Compliance
The regulatory surface we build against
Controls are designed into the architecture and evidenced in the pipeline, so an audit is a report rather than a project.
Outcomes
What these engagements produced
Representative results from engagements in this sector.
- 01
Series B SaaS
Deploy frequency tripled in one quarter
Rebuilt the release pipeline and eliminated the flaky test suite that had made every deployment a manual judgement call.
- 02
Enterprise software vendor
Single-tenant product made properly multi-tenant
Introduced tenant isolation and regional residency without forking the codebase, unblocking two enterprise deals.
- 03
Private equity buyer
Diligence that changed the offer
A four-week technical review quantified remediation at a level material to valuation, with the findings accepted by both sides.
How we deliver here
Three things that make working with tech companies different
Peer review
Your engineers will read our code, and should
Technology clients are the most demanding review audience we have, which makes them the most useful. Our work goes through your review process on your standards, not a separate track with a softer bar.
- Pull requests reviewed by your engineers, not waved through
- Your linting, testing and style standards adopted
- Architecture decisions argued, not presented
- We expect to be told when we are wrong
Platform drag
The roadmap is blocked by the platform, not the plan
The usual diagnosis is that feature delivery has slowed because build times, flaky tests and deployment friction have grown quietly. It rarely appears on a roadmap because no single quarter is when it happened.
- Delivery friction measured: build, test, review, deploy
- DORA metrics baselined before any change
- Highest-leverage bottleneck fixed first, then re-measured
- Improvements handed to your platform team to own
Compliance readiness
SOC 2 as continuous evidence, not an annual scramble
Enterprise deals stall on security questionnaires. Building control evidence into the pipeline turns an annual fire drill into a report you can generate, and shortens the sales cycle more than any collateral.
- Controls implemented as code, evidenced automatically
- Access reviews and change records generated, not assembled
- Sub-processor register maintained as part of the pipeline
- Questionnaire responses drawn from live evidence
Common asks
What technology clients usually need, and what we recommend
The stated ask and the underlying constraint are different often enough to be worth a table.
| Stated ask | Usual underlying constraint | What we recommend | Time to evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| We need more engineersMost common | Delivery friction, not headcount | Measure DORA metrics before hiring | 3 weeks |
| We need to re-architect | Two or three hot paths, not the whole system | Profile first, scope the smallest change | 2–4 weeks |
| We need SOC 2 | Enterprise deals stalling on security review | Continuous control evidence in the pipeline | One quarter |
| We need AI in the product | No agreed definition of a good output | Use-case workshop and an evaluation set first | 1–3 weeks |
| We need to cut cloud spend | No unit-cost metric per customer or feature | Attribute cost before optimising it | 3 weeks |
We need more engineers
Most common- Usual underlying constraint
- Delivery friction, not headcount
- What we recommend
- Measure DORA metrics before hiring
- Time to evidence
- 3 weeks
We need to re-architect
- Usual underlying constraint
- Two or three hot paths, not the whole system
- What we recommend
- Profile first, scope the smallest change
- Time to evidence
- 2–4 weeks
We need SOC 2
- Usual underlying constraint
- Enterprise deals stalling on security review
- What we recommend
- Continuous control evidence in the pipeline
- Time to evidence
- One quarter
We need AI in the product
- Usual underlying constraint
- No agreed definition of a good output
- What we recommend
- Use-case workshop and an evaluation set first
- Time to evidence
- 1–3 weeks
We need to cut cloud spend
- Usual underlying constraint
- No unit-cost metric per customer or feature
- What we recommend
- Attribute cost before optimising it
- Time to evidence
- 3 weeks
Questions
What technology clients ask first
Usually whether we will slow their team down.
Working with your engineers
Will your engineers actually meet our bar?
That is for your reviewers to judge, and we would rather be tested than trusted. Our work goes through your review process on your standards, and we would suggest starting with a small scoped piece precisely so the question gets answered cheaply and early.
We just need capacity. Do we have to buy consulting?
No — a retained team working inside your process, on your board, to your standards is a normal arrangement for us. What we will do before starting is spend a few days measuring delivery friction, because the honest answer is frequently that capacity is not the constraint and adding people would make it worse.
How do you avoid becoming a dependency?
Everything is built in your repository under your review process, improvements to the platform are handed to your team to own, and retainers taper by agreement rather than renewing by default. For a technology client this matters more than most — you have the capability to own it, so the only question is whether the handover is designed for.
Working in a different sector?
The engineering practice is the same across every vertical we serve. Browse the full list, or tell us what you are dealing with.
All industriesTell us where your roadmap is blocked.
Whether it is capacity, platform drag, or an architecture decision you keep deferring — start with a conversation, not a statement of work.