Engineering teams embedded inside your organisation, a Virtual Technology Office when you need a CTO’s reach without the headcount, and GCC enablement for when the answer is a centre of your own.
Building the team takes eighteen months you do not have. Buying the product means living inside someone else’s roadmap. There is a third option, and it is the one this practice exists to run.
An extended engineering team works to your rhythm — your standups, your board, your definition of done — while carrying our standards, our review practice and our escalation path behind it. You get capacity that behaves like an in-house team and can be scaled or ended without a redundancy process.
Where you want that team to end up yours, we say so at the start and structure it that way: Build‑Operate‑Transfer, or Build‑Transfer, with the handover milestone written into the contract rather than negotiated at the end.
An extended execution arm for a CTO. Architecture authority, vendor and build-versus-buy decisions, technical governance, and the engineering leadership to carry them out — without adding a permanent leadership layer. Every project we run carries a Virtual CTO; this is that capability sold on its own.
Cross-functional teams inside your organisation, sized to a product area rather than a ticket queue. Integrated programme management, milestone-based deliverables, defined governance, and insourced expertise that stays after the pod scales down.
Standing up a global capability centre that works from day one — site and entity decisions, hiring plan, engineering practice, tooling, security posture and the governance that satisfies the parent. Micro-GCC structures for firms that need presence in India or the Gulf without the scale that usually implies.
We run the centre as a managed service — hiring, delivery, facilities, compliance — under your brand and your standards, with an agreed transfer point if and when you want it in-house.
Several engagements start here and stop here, which is fine. These are priced as standalone pieces of work with a written deliverable.
Stack assessment, architecture review, gap analysis and cyber-security posture — for your own planning or for a transaction. We have run OSS framework audits for IP acquisition, with full due-diligence reporting to the acquiring party.
An honest three-year comparison, including the open-source versus commercial licence question and what each option costs to operate rather than to acquire.
Sequenced, costed, and written so each step stands on its own. Legacy-to-cloud migration paths, platform consolidation, and the order in which to do things.
They did a wonderful job. I, and our team, love the work they do, and they really are our extended, virtual technology team now.
We had worked with OpenTurf for a couple of years. They were trusted partners to us when we developed our product.
Embedded teams are the most rate-compressed part of this market, and the compression is going to continue as tooling makes each engineer more productive.
We would rather structure around outcomes and transfer than defend a rate. That means naming the milestones the pod is accountable for, publishing what happens to the commercials when we deliver them faster than planned, and putting a transfer option in the contract from the start.
A supplier who benefits from your team never becoming self-sufficient is badly aligned with you. We would rather be judged on the second engagement than protected on the first.
Tell us what your team cannot get to, and whether you want that capability to end up in-house. Both answers are fine — they lead to different structures.
