Foundation

Principles

The non-negotiable rules that govern every engagement.

Structured Scope Before Code

No implementation begins without a documented scope and architectural outline. Requirements are explicit before the first line is written.

Stage-Based Progression

Work advances through defined stages, each with explicit deliverables. No stage is skipped; each builds on the previous.

Asynchronous by Default

Communication is structured and primarily asynchronous. Meetings are purposeful, time-boxed, and tied to specific stages.

Decisions Are Versioned

Architectural decisions are documented and traceable. Scope changes follow a formal Change Request process.

Milestone-Based Payments

Each stage and milestone has defined acceptance criteria and payment terms. No surprises, no invoices out of thin air.

Transparent Progress

Continuous visibility into project status. No black boxes, no waiting until the end to discover where things stand.

Process

Engagement Stages

A predictable path from initial conversation to operational system.

0
Qualification

Fit Evaluation

Structured intake and technical fit evaluation. We determine whether the engagement makes sense for both parties.

Output
  • Engagement Decision
1
Fixed Fee

Discovery & Scope Definition

Requirements are translated into a structured technical scope. This is where ambiguity gets eliminated.

Outputs
  • Scope Document
  • High-Level Architecture
  • Risk Assessment
  • Milestone Plan
2
Freeze Point

Architecture Freeze

Core decisions are formalized and versioned. After this stage, scope changes require a formal Change Request.

Decisions Locked
  • Domain Boundaries
  • Data Model
  • Authentication Model
  • Deployment Strategy
3
Milestone-Based

MVP Implementation

Implementation proceeds in clearly defined milestones. Each milestone is a complete, deployable unit with acceptance criteria.

Per Milestone
  • Acceptance Criteria
  • Deployable Artifact
  • Status Report
4
Handover

Stabilization & Handover

Final validation and operational documentation. The system is ready to run without us.

Outputs
  • Runbook
  • Deployment Guide
  • Final Review
Compatibility

Who This Works For

This model is intentionally opinionated. It works well for some, not for others.

Good Fit

  • Founders and teams who value structured execution
  • Organizations that prefer clarity over improvisation
  • Teams that understand the cost of architectural shortcuts
  • People comfortable operating in asynchronous environments

Not a Fit

  • Open-ended experimentation without defined outcomes
  • Ongoing staff augmentation arrangements
  • Loosely defined timelines or "figure it out as we go"
  • Teams that need daily standups and constant sync
Next Step

Start with Stage 0

If this approach resonates, let's have a conversation to evaluate fit.

Get in Touch Back to Home