In 2–3 weeks, you'll have a buildable specification with architecture decisions, technology choices, and realistic effort estimates.
WHAT THIS ENGAGEMENT IS
We take your concept or prototype and figure out exactly what it takes to build it. Not "yes, it's feasible" — a real technical plan. Architecture decisions, technology choices, integration complexity, risk assessment, and effort estimates broken down by component.
The output gives you — and your board, investors, or budget committee — everything needed to make an informed go/no-go decision with real numbers.
Days 1–3
We review your concept, prototype, or product requirements in detail. We identify the technical unknowns — things that could be harder than they look. We also map your existing technical constraints.
Days 4–8
We evaluate architecture options: what to build, what to buy, what to integrate. Each option is assessed for scalability, cost, complexity, and team alignment. Risky components get spiked here.
Days 9–12
We break the build into components and estimate effort: engineering time, infrastructure costs, third-party services, and operational overhead. Each estimate includes assumptions and risk factors.
Days 13–15
We deliver the complete technical specification and walk your team through it. Every architecture decision is documented with rationale, every estimate has its assumptions.
A buildable spec with architecture decisions, component breakdown, data model, integration approach, and API design. Detailed enough for an engineering team to start building. You'll use it for scoping development and onboarding a dev team.
Learn MoreDocumented rationale for every significant technology choice: what was considered, what was chosen, and why. Includes trade-offs and alternatives. You'll use it for technical governance and onboarding new team members.
Learn MoreComponent-by-component estimates with assumptions clearly stated. Includes engineering time, infrastructure costs, and third-party service costs. Presented as ranges. You'll use it for budgeting and go/no-go decisions.
Learn MoreA catalog of technical risks: what could go wrong, how likely, how severe, and what to do about it. Organized by phase. You'll use it for project planning and risk mitigation during execution.
Learn MoreThe concept hasn't been validated with users yet. You just want a second opinion on existing architecture. You already have a spec and just need builders.
For concept validation, do the UI/UX Design Sprint first. For architecture review, a Technical Assessment is a better fit. For builders, go straight to Development + Delivery.
You have a validated concept and need to understand the technical path. You're evaluating build vs. buy with realistic data. You need a credible technical plan for investors or a budget committee. Your team says "we can build it" but can't tell you how long or at what cost.
We send over a brief engagement letter and schedule your kickoff within the week.
“The feasibility sprint gave us the confidence to greenlight the project. Having real architecture decisions and cost ranges — not just a developer's gut feeling — made all the difference with our board.”
Not necessarily. A clear product brief or detailed requirements work too. But the more defined the concept, the more specific the estimates.
If you don't have a prototype or detailed brief, consider a Design Sprint first. The more clarity we have on what you want to build, the more specific and useful our estimates will be.
Yes. The specification is designed to be self-contained — any competent engineering team should be able to build from it.
Many clients use our specs to write better job postings, evaluate agency proposals, or onboard contractors. The deliverables are designed to hand off cleanly regardless of who builds next.
We provide ranges, not exact numbers, and every estimate includes its assumptions.
For well-understood problems, the range is tighter. For novel or complex components, it's wider. We'd rather be honestly uncertain than precisely wrong. Every assumption is documented so you can track what changes.
Then you just saved yourself months and significant budget. We'll explain what makes it infeasible and whether a modified approach could work.
Sometimes the answer is "not yet" rather than "no." We'll tell you what would need to change — whether that's a technology maturation, a scope reduction, or a different architectural approach — and what that timeline looks like.
The specification becomes the foundation for a development engagement. Your engineering team starts with clarity instead of discovery.
If the scope is large or architecture complex, a roadmap can sequence the build into phases.
We'll send over a brief engagement letter and schedule your kickoff within the week.
