The usual friction
An external supplier arrives, builds something in their own style, and hands it to an internal team who did not choose the approach and now have to maintain it. Resentment is the normal outcome and it is entirely avoidable.
We ask to talk to your developers before scoping, not after, and we adopt your conventions rather than importing ours.
How we split the work
- By component, with a written boundary — we own this service, you own that one
- By phase — we build the first version, your team takes it forward
- By capacity — we take the well-specified work so your team keeps the domain-heavy parts
- By specialism — we do the integration or the AI layer, you do the product
What does not work is splitting by task within the same component. Two teams editing the same code with different conventions produces the worst of both.
Your standards, not ours
Your language conventions, your review process, your branching model, your deployment pipeline. If you have opinions, we adopt them; if you do not, we bring sensible defaults and document them.
Code review runs both ways. Our work goes through your review, and we are happy to review yours if that is useful.
Knowledge transfer as you go
- Your developers in the design conversations, not just the demonstrations
- Pairing sessions on the parts they will maintain
- Decision records written as decisions are made, not at the end
- A defined handover date with the deployment done by your team, with us watching
The fractional option
Some clients want judgement rather than capacity: a day a week of experienced technical direction, supplier evaluation, architecture review and someone their developers can ask.
That is a different arrangement from a build and it suits businesses with a small internal team and no senior technical voice.