Why we do not do staff augmentation

Every few weeks someone emails asking if we can do "40 hours a week for three months at $100/hour." The answer is no, and it is worth explaining why — for both us and them.

Hourly contracting is a misalignment trap

When you pay an engineer by the hour, you have created an incentive to work more hours. You have created a disincentive to ship fast, find shortcuts, or take risks. The contractor's interest is to look productive. Your interest is to get the project done.

These interests almost never align. The result is a long, expensive engagement where the actual outcome is unclear. Both sides feel bad. Nobody refers the relationship.

Project pricing aligns incentives

When we quote a project — a Custom SaaS at $50,000, an MVP Sprint at $20,000 — we have an incentive to ship as fast as quality allows. The faster we finish, the higher our effective rate. The slower we finish, the more we lose. Our interest finally lines up with yours: ship the project, ship it well, move on.

This is how every other professional service works. You do not pay a contractor to build a house by the hour. You pay a fixed price for the house. The same logic applies to software.

The exception: ongoing advisory

We do offer Technical Advisory at a monthly rate ($5K–$15K). This is different. The deliverable is not a finished software project. The deliverable is a senior engineering brain available to your team — weekly working sessions, async support, hiring help, architecture review.

Monthly retainers work for advisory because the outcome is continuous. Hourly contracting fails for software development because the outcome is discrete.

What this means if you are hiring us

If you want a thing built — say so. We will scope it, price it, and ship it. If you want senior engineering judgment on call — that is what Advisory is for.

If you want neither and just want to add a person to your team for a few months, you should hire that person directly. We will not be a good fit.