Dedicated Development Teams
Named engineers who join your daily standups, work in your repositories and take direction from your tech lead, for when you have the leadership and need more hands.
You have a deadline, a roadmap, and about half the people you need. Recruitment is underway, but it isn’t moving fast enough. The usual alternative is a supplier who sends whoever became available last week: capable people with no knowledge of your system. What you need instead are engineers who learn your system properly, work inside your process and report to your tech lead.
What you are really paying for is context
A new engineer spends the first weeks learning why the billing service has two code paths and which nightly jobs are safe to rerun. That knowledge is expensive to build and easy to lose. Keeping the same people across phases is what saves you from paying for it twice.
- Named engineers who join your team’s routine and learn your systems in depth
- The code stays in your repositories and accounts, with nothing held on our side
- Accountable to your tech lead for technical direction and quality
- Runbooks and decisions written as the work goes, not assembled at the end
Choose the model, not the headcount
Most conversations about this start with a headcount. What actually decides the right setup is who sets priorities, whether you have a lead with time to direct more engineers, and what you want in place when the engagement ends. Those answers point to a model, and the headcount follows from the model rather than the other way around.
The trade-off is real. An embedded engineer is easy to direct but hard to hold to a delivery commitment, because you are the one setting the work. A self-contained team with its own lead can take on a commitment, but it needs a part of the roadmap it owns without waiting for approval on every decision. Neither is safer in general. Each fails in its own way.
How the models differ
| Model | Best when | Directed by | How it ends |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embedded engineer | You have a lead, not enough engineers | Your squad lead | Open work and decisions left in your repository |
| Self-contained team | A whole area of the roadmap needs an owner | Our lead, against your priorities | Handover of that area, with runbooks |
| Named specialist | One problem is blocking everything else | Whoever owns the problem | When the problem is solved |
| Bridge team | You are hiring, but the deadline is fixed | Your engineering manager | Handover to your new hires, in writing |
What you get in practice
Whether an embedded team works comes down to practical details: how the work runs day to day, which language it runs in, and what stays with you afterward.
In the language you work in
English, Turkish and Spanish are our working languages, so standups, tickets and code reviews can stay in the language your team already uses.
Inside your process, not next to it
Your task board, your standups, your definition of done. We would rather raise a concern in your planning meeting than send a status report nobody reads.
AI-assisted engineering
Our engineers work with AI assistants every day, as part of how we engineer. Every generated change is reviewed like any other code, by an engineer who can explain it.
Decisions written down as you go
Architecture decisions are recorded in your repository with the options considered and rejected. When the team changes or the engagement ends, the reasoning stays for anyone to question.
The awkward questions
A lead with time to direct the work. The engineers join your standups, work from your task board and follow your definition of done, so priorities have to be set on your side. If nobody has that time, a self-contained team or a project will serve you better than more hands.
Not sure which one you need?
Describe the problem in a paragraph and we will tell you which service applies.