A standing pod against your roadmap

Yes, with notice — usually a month either way, so we can plan rather than scramble. Scaling up takes as long as finding the right person; scaling down we would rather do gradually so knowledge transfers instead of evaporating.

You set priorities; the tech lead owns technical direction and delivery. Most clients treat the pod as one of their own teams, using their board and ceremonies. If you would rather we ran delivery management too, we can — but you keep the roadmap either way.

That is our problem to absorb. We aim for an overlap so the replacement learns from the person leaving, and because context lives in documentation and pairing rather than one person, a departure is a slowdown rather than a hole.

With a guaranteed overlap window agreed at the start, and asynchronous habits for everything else — written decisions, recorded demos, and a board that tells the truth without requiring a meeting to interpret.

Yes, from the first commit, in your repository and your cloud accounts. Nothing about this model creates a dependency on us other than the people, and even that is mitigated by writing things down.

Long enough to be worth it. Ramp-up is real, and a pod that leaves before it has learned your systems has spent your money on its own education. We will be direct about whether your timeframe justifies this model or whether a project engagement fits better.

Frequently. We start with a technical assessment and an agreed stabilisation period before adding features, because taking ownership of an unfamiliar codebase and promising velocity in the same week is how teams end up misleading each other.