Asking for two more engineers is usually another way of saying the programme is behind.
Two contractors at a low hourly rate is one answer, and sometimes the right one, in which case it is work for someone else; however, it is rarely the cheapest answer once you count the weeks before either person is genuinely productive, the senior engineer’s time spent supervising them, and the judgement neither was hired for.
Knowing when a rigid process is protecting the programme and when it is in the way, and how to work around one that is wrong without losing its original purpose, comes only from having done the work in start-ups and global manufacturers, Formula 1 and police fleets, across both lightly and heavily process-driven organisations. It cannot be taught, and it is rarely what a day rate buys.
Instead, we deliver the whole scope: Thomas leads a team of experienced engineers he has worked with before, so there is no onboarding curve and no supervision drawn out of your team. Carbon Six carries the contract, the coordination and the accountability — one party answerable for the outcome, rather than several answerable for their timesheets. Thomas’ own oversight comes with the team; it is often not a separate line on the invoice, and it does not stop at the boundary of the scope.
The rate is the wrong number to compare. The useful comparison is what the delivered scope costs in total, and how much of your own organisation it consumes on the way.
As for size — as big as the programme needs. Thomas has delivered for the Metropolitan Police, South Yorkshire Police and NEVS at the head of teams, and built an engineering organisation of twenty-five across two countries at Chassis Autonomy. Leading engineers is not something that stopped when he founded Carbon Six.
What we will not do is put someone on your programme who has not worked with us before, or staff it with juniors and call that leverage.