Loading
Loading
Most engagements combine two or three of them, and most begin with the first. We would rather do a small number of things properly than list everything we could theoretically take on.
Deciding what to build, what to retire, and in what order — before anyone writes code.
Designing the thing people actually use, in enough detail that it can be built.
Building and replatforming the public-facing systems an organisation depends on.
Building the shared component language that keeps a growing product coherent.
Independent advice on architecture, suppliers and the decisions that are expensive to reverse.
Design and delivery work is priced per two-week increment, so it can be stopped at the end of any increment without penalty. Strategy and consulting engagements are fixed-price against a defined scope.
We work out what is actually true. Interviews with the people who use and operate the system, a read of the data, and a look at the work as it is performed rather than as it is documented.
A written position, including the parts nobody wanted to hear.
We settle what the thing is, who it serves, and what it has to do at launch — and, just as deliberately, what it will not do. Sequencing and cost are attached here, not later.
A defined proposition and a sequenced plan with cost and risk.
Design and engineering run together in two-week increments, with your team involved throughout. Accessibility, performance and search budgets are enforced in the build rather than assessed after it.
Working software in production, in increments you can stop.
We document the system, train the people who will run it, and stay involved through the first period of independent ownership. The engagement ends when your team no longer needs us, which is the point.
Documentation, training, and a team that owns what we built.
A first conversation is an hour, costs nothing, and usually ends with a straight answer about whether we are the right studio for the problem.