Case study · SaaS
More engineering capacity, same way of working
Growing SaaS companies often have a longer roadmap than their engineering team can deliver, and hiring locally takes months. This is how we added .NET developers who join the client's team, work in the client's tools and process, and deliver in the client's sprints within weeks.
Project overview
Developers embedded in the client's engineering team.
- Industry
- SaaS
- Client
- Confidential
- Model
- Staff augmentation
- Stack
- .NET, Azure, SQL Server
- Ramp-up
- 2–4 weeks
- Team size
- 2–6 developers
- Working hours
- Overlap with the client's core hours
- Management
- The client's engineering lead
- Terms
- Monthly, scalable
Expected business outcomes
What the client set out to achieve
Ramp-up speed and delivery in the client's own sprint metrics are what count.
-
2–4 weeks
From agreement to first sprint
Candidates shortlisted, interviewed by the client and onboarded.
Depends on the client's interview process
-
Sprint 2–3
Contributing at full pace
Developers ramp up on the client's codebase with a buddy from the client's team.
On a well-documented codebase
-
The client's metrics
Delivery measured the client's way
Velocity, cycle time and quality tracked in the client's tools.
No separate reporting system
Business challenges
Where the client started
The roadmap is clear; the capacity isn't.
Roadmap
Features promised to customers slip quarter after quarter.
Hiring
Local .NET hiring takes three to six months per role.
Team
Senior engineers stretched between features and support.
Agencies
Previous outsourcing produced code the team had to rewrite.
Concern
Leaders want extra capacity without losing control of quality.
Proposed solution
How the engagement works
Our developers, the client's team, the client's process.
-
Selection
Candidates matched to the client's stack and seniority; the client interviewed and chose.
-
Onboarding
Access, environment setup and a buddy from the client's team for the first sprints.
-
The client's process
The client's repos, branching, code review and definition of done.
-
Time zone overlap
Working hours overlapping the client's core hours for stand-ups and pairing.
-
Quality
Code review on every change and automated tests as the client's team requires.
-
Flexible scaling
Add or reduce developers monthly as the client's roadmap changes.
Project requirements
What the client asked us for
The request was capacity. The condition is that it feels like hiring, not outsourcing: developers who join stand-ups, follow the client's standards and stay long enough to know the product.
We encourage one of the client's senior engineers to own onboarding for the first weeks, because that decides how quickly new developers become productive.
What the project had to deliver
- 01Developers the client interviews and chooses
- 02Working in the client's tools and process
- 03Time zone overlap for collaboration
- 04Scale up or down monthly
Key challenges & considerations
What made it harder, and what we did
-
Thin documentation of the codebase
What we did
New developers paired with a buddy and wrote down what they learned as they went.
-
Security and access approvals
What we did
Access requests were raised before the start date, so day one was productive.
-
Different time zones
What we did
Working hours were set to overlap with the client's core hours.
-
Knowledge held by one or two people
What we did
Knowledge was spread through pairing and code review, so it no longer sat with one or two people.
What we watched for
- Assign a buddy from the client's team
- Start with well-defined tickets
- Keep developers on the product long term
- Review fit monthly
Development process
From request to first sprint
A structured start makes the difference.
-
Role definition
Skills, seniority and responsibilities agreed with the client's engineering lead.
-
Shortlist and interviews
Candidates shortlisted; the client interviewed and selected.
-
Onboarding
Access, environments and a buddy arranged before day one.
-
First sprints
Small, well-defined tickets first, then normal sprint work.
-
Regular reviews
Monthly reviews of fit, delivery and team size.
Technology stack
Your stack, your tools
Developers adapt to the client's way of working, not the other way round.
Collaboration
- The client's Slack or Teams
- The client's Jira or Azure Boards
- Daily stand-ups in the client's time zone overlap
Engineering
- The client's repositories and branching
- The client's code review rules
- The client's CI/CD
Quality
- The client's definition of done
- Automated tests
- Code review on every change
Management
- Weekly check-ins
- Monthly reviews
- Replacement guarantee
Quality assurance & deployment
Held to the client's own standards
Our engineers worked inside the client's team, so quality was measured the client's way: their definition of done, their reviews and their pipelines.
- The client's definition of done on every ticket
- Code review on every change, by the client's team and ours
- Automated tests written with the work, not after it
- The client's security and access policies followed
- Delivery reviewed every sprint with the client's lead
Deployment
- 01First sprintsSmall, well-defined tickets first, then normal sprint work.
- 02Regular reviewsMonthly reviews of fit, delivery and team size.
- 03Releases through the client's pipelineWork shipped through the client's own CI/CD and release process.
- 04ContinuityThe same engineers kept on the product, with a monthly review of fit and performance.
Final deliverables
A bigger team, still yours
The roadmap moves faster with developers who work in the client's process, attend the client's ceremonies and are held to the client's standards.
Capacity flexes with the roadmap, without long hiring cycles.
- Faster roadmap delivery
- Same process and standards
- Developers the client chose
- Flexible team size
Handed over to the client
- 01Delivered workIn the client's repositories and boards
- 02DocumentationWritten as the work was done
- 03Knowledge transferThrough pairing and review
- 04Monthly reviewsOf delivery and fit
- 05Flexible termsScale up or down monthly
Success metrics
How success is measured
| Measure | Outcome | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|
| From agreement to first sprint | 2–4 weeks | Depends on the client's interview process |
| Contributing at full pace | Sprint 2–3 | On a well-documented codebase |
| Delivery measured the client's way | The client's metrics | No separate reporting system |
Verified reviews
What clients say about our staff augmentation work
Verified reviews from our clients on the same kind of work, published on Clutch.
-
Staff Augmentation
Staff Augmentation & Software Development for a Cloud Platform
Their talent and agility as developers are exceptional.
Verified review on Clutch (Hemen Showkati, opens in a new tab)
Hemen Showkati
Co-Founder & CEO, Doprax Oct 2021 – Ongoing
-
Staff Augmentation
Remote Software Development Support
Their responsiveness proved to be extremely valuable for the project.
Verified review on Clutch (Nathaniel Bibler, opens in a new tab)
Nathaniel Bibler
CEO & Development Director, Envy Labs Mar 2022 – Jan 2023
-
Staff Augmentation
Staff Augmentation for a Support Company
They worked with us enthusiastically, taking the time to understand our needs and offering helpful solutions.
James Sullivan Founder & CEO, Support Company Mar 2022 – Feb 2023 Verified review on Clutch (James Sullivan, opens in a new tab)
Free discovery call
Have an idea? Let's turn it into AI-powered software.
Book a free discovery call with our experts. Share your idea and we will help you shape the scope, timeline and budget, under NDA.
- Free consultation
- NDA before we talk
- Transparent estimate




