Most technical hiring goes wrong at the screening stage: CVs match keywords, interviews test the wrong things, and the cost of a poor hire is absorbed quietly. We screen technically because our consultants do the work, and we would have to work alongside whoever we place.
The failure modes are specific and expensive.
Screening against a job specification finds people who have listed the right technologies, which is not the same as people who have used them well.
Panels without deep technical knowledge in the specific area rely on general impressions, and the gap emerges weeks into the engagement.
Scarce skills, slow processes and unrealistic specifications combine so vacancies persist, work does not get done and existing staff absorb the pressure.
An individual arrives with no context, no onboarding and no technical oversight, and productivity takes far longer than expected.
The most expensive outcome is not an unfilled role. It is a filled one that does not work out three months in, by which point the project has slipped and the alternative candidates are gone. It is a filled one that does not work out three months in
One specialist, a team, or a managed capability delivered as a service.
Technical screening by practitioners, against what the role actually requires rather than what the specification lists.
Where one person is not enough: assembling a team with the right mix of skills, seniority and delivery experience.
A managed team option where you want the outcome rather than the recruitment, with oversight and continuity included.
Engagement models vary widely. These are the ways clients typically use us.
Reviewing the requirement before searching, because unrealistic or keyword-driven specifications are the most common reason roles stay open.
Candidates assessed by consultants working in the same discipline, testing actual capability rather than confirming a CV.
Specialist contractors for defined pieces of work, with realistic availability and rate guidance provided before the search begins.
Engagement models that let both sides assess fit properly before a permanent commitment is made.
Permanent placement for technical and delivery roles, with the same practitioner-led screening standard applied.
Building a complete team with the right mix of skills and seniority, rather than filling roles individually and hoping the mix works.
Where a key technical person has left unexpectedly: rapid interim cover, knowledge capture and a plan for permanent replacement.
Placements requiring background checks, security clearance, professional registration or sector-specific compliance obligations.
Deliberately slower at the start, because a poor match costs everyone more later.
Understand the work, the team, the technical environment and what success looks like in the first ninety days.
Review the specification for realism, and agree rate, availability and engagement model honestly before searching.
Define the screening approach, including the technical assessment appropriate to the discipline.
Screen, shortlist and support the interview process, with candidate feedback provided both ways.
Check in after placement, resolve onboarding gaps early, and review fit at agreed points.
We will tell you when a role is not fillable as specified. Sometimes the honest answer is that the market rate is higher, the skill combination is unrealistic, or the work would be better done as a project than a hire.
We are a consultancy that staffs, not an agency that also mentions technology.
Our consultants assess candidates in their own discipline. They would potentially have to work alongside whoever we place, which concentrates the mind.
If a role cannot be filled at the rate or specification offered, we say so at the outset rather than searching for months.
Sometimes the answer is a project rather than a hire. Because we deliver both, we can offer either without pretending one is the only option.
Managed team arrangements include cover for absence and turnover, so a departure does not become your problem again.
Illustrative engagements, written in the structure we use for real case studies.
A senior platform engineer left mid-programme. Interim cover was placed quickly while a permanent search ran in parallel.
A data programme needed several complementary skills. Assembling a balanced team proved faster and more effective than filling roles one at a time.
Demo content: the organizations and measurements above are illustrative placeholders written to show the structure of a real story. Replace them with verified client results and approved references before publishing.
Material for leaders trying to fill difficult technical roles.
Which requirements genuinely matter, which combinations are unrealistic, and how keyword-driven specifications exclude capable people.
Read moreHow to decide whether a piece of work needs a permanent hire, a contractor, or a delivered project — and the cost of getting it wrong.
Read moreAccess, context, technical orientation and success criteria to prepare before day one, so ramp-up takes days rather than weeks.
Read moreSometimes the answer is a hire, sometimes a contractor, and sometimes a delivered project. We will give you an honest view of which.
Describe the situation in your own words.
