Research & Development Services

Yes. A solution centre, time-and-material consulting, or a fixed full-cycle engagement — you pick the one that matches how open-ended the question is, and you can change it between phases.

By timeboxing. Each experiment gets a fixed budget and a date on which we report what it showed, even when the result is inconclusive. Open-ended research drifts; research with a reporting date either concludes or tells you it needs another round, and you decide whether to fund it.

An MVP tests whether people want the product. R&D tests whether it can be built, at what cost, and with which approach. Demand questions need users; feasibility questions need experiments.

You decide what to do with the result, and we can carry the work into a build or hand it to whoever will. The engagement is written so the research stands on its own either way.

A written report, the code from every experiment including the ones that failed, an effort estimate for the recommended option, and a list of what remains uncertain.

Then it has done its job, at a fraction of what finding out during a build would have cost. We would rather write that report than let a bad assumption reach production.

Yes. Researchers are assigned to one engagement at a time, because context-switching is more damaging to research than to delivery work.

You do — the report, the data, the experiments and any code produced, delivered into your accounts as the work happens. We sign an NDA before the first session.

Engineers, analysts and designers who have shipped production systems, not career researchers. Feasibility answers are only useful if they hold once someone has to build the thing.

Consulting is time-and-material against a cap you set. Full-cycle work is quoted per engagement after the framing session, once the question is specific enough to estimate.