Who this is for

Who this is for. And who it is not.

This page turns away work. That is the point: refusing the wrong engagement is the most credible thing a three-person studio can publish, because we have no bench to hide a bad fit behind.

Fits

Who this is for.

Mid-market, no CTO.

Roughly ten to a hundred million in revenue, with real operations behind it: inventory, rosters, jobs, claims, something that actually runs day to day. Nobody in the building has technology as their whole job, so decisions land with the owner or the head of operations, alongside everything else on their desk. You have watched a vendor demo go well and then die in your own systems, and you want someone who builds against what you actually have, not a deck.

Regulated professional services.

Insurance, health administration, legal, accounting: firms where compliance decides what a system is allowed to touch before anyone asks what it should do. A release path exists whether or not the project plan mentions it, and building outside that constraint just means rebuilding later, at the worst possible time. You need the constraint respected from day one, not discovered in an audit.

Does not fit

Who this is not for.

Refusing work is the most credible thing on a services site. This is the whole list, named plainly.

You want a vendor to run this for you, not a system you own outright.

Ownership is the whole offer. Everything we build ships in a repository you control, not one we host on your behalf, and that only works for a business that actually wants to run its own system.

You already have a CTO or a platform group who can build this in house.

If someone in the building already owns technology decisions and has a team to execute them, you do not need a studio like this one. We are built for the businesses where that role does not exist yet.

Pre-revenue startups.

There is no operation running yet to embed into, and no real data to build against. We shadow how work actually happens; a business with no established way of working yet has nothing for us to shadow.

A proof of concept you never intend to run.

We build against your real data because the point is to keep what we build. A demo built to be admired once and then shelved is the appearance of AI without it touching your business, a different and cheaper service, and not one we offer.

A headcount replacement story.

If the brief is fewer people doing the same work, we are the wrong studio to write that story for you. We build tools your own people use to do better work, not a justification for smaller ones.

No named person whose week actually changes if this works.

This is the first of the five questions our gate asks on every engagement: a named person, not just an executive sponsor, whose week actually changes if it works. Without one, there is nobody in your business to tell us honestly whether it did.

A system of record too unreliable to build against.

This is the fifth of the five questions our gate asks on every engagement. If your source of truth cannot be trusted, that surfaces in week six at ten times the cost, not on day one where it belongs.

Signals

Check yourself in ten seconds.

  • You can name the one person whose week changes if this works, right now, without checking with anyone.
  • You have already tried the obvious tool, and someone quietly went back to the spreadsheet.
  • Compliance, not ambition, decides what a new system is allowed to touch.
  • You would rather hear "this is not worth building" than pay for a mandate that never finishes.
Next

See yourself in the fits, not the exclusions?