Deploys that are boring on purpose
Infrastructure, pipelines and observability set up so shipping is routine and rollback is one command.
What you get
- Infrastructure as code
- CI/CD pipelines with staged environments
- Monitoring, logging and alerting
- Secret management
- Runbooks and rollback procedures
What changes
- Anyone on the team can deploy, not just the person who set it up
- An incident has a runbook instead of a group call
- Infrastructure is reproducible from the repository
- Cloud spend is attributable to something
When teams call us
- Deploys done by hand from a laptop
- Nobody certain what is running in production
- A cloud bill growing faster than usage
Process
How the work runs
The same four phases whichever engagement model you pick, each ending in something you can read.
Discovery
A short paid engagement that turns the ambition into a scope somebody can build and estimate.
- Written scope
- Estimate with assumptions
- Risk register
Design & architecture
Interface and data model settled before the first feature, because both are expensive to change afterwards.
- Prototype
- Data model
- Decisions recorded
Build
Two-week iterations against a board you can see, with a deployed environment from week one rather than week twelve.
- Fortnightly demo
- Staging from week one
- Your repository
Launch & handover
Release, monitoring, and documentation good enough that your own team can take it from here.
- Runbooks
- Alerts configured
- Handover sessions
DevOps & Platform, specifically
The questions that come up on this work in particular.
Still have a question? Talk to the team
Not sure which service your project needs?
Most useful projects cross two or three of them. Describe the outcome and we will map it.