Intelligence. Integrity. Impact.
Three principles that shape every engagement. Here they are in full, not as slogans.
The default model in services is leverage: a few senior architects set direction, and a larger group of mid-level and junior engineers does the bulk of the typing. On paper the math works. In practice, the most expensive bugs in any system are the ones a junior doesn't recognise as bugs yet — the subtle race condition, the mis-cast type, the cache invalidation that looks fine on a happy-path demo. By the time a senior reviewer catches them, they've shipped.
typeofmd refuses that trade. Every line is written or directly paired-on by a senior engineer — me. That is the entire hiring policy. It's also the hardest constraint to scale, which is exactly why the practice stays small on purpose.
For you, the output is quieter systems, shorter PRs, and fewer 2 a.m. pages. For me, it's the only way to stand behind a fixed price with a straight face. If the problem is big enough to need five senior engineers, I'll tell you that during the audit and help you hire them — not staff juniors against it and hope for the best.
- High quality programming as the default, not an exception
- Every PR reviewed by a senior — because there is only senior
- Production-quality code from commit #1, no "we'll harden it later"
- No sub-contracting, no offshore hand-offs, no staff augmentation
Most proposals are written before the consultant understands the problem. The quote comes first because the sales cycle demands it, and the truth gets shaped to fit the quote. That's how scopes balloon, timelines slip, and clients end up paying twice — once for the work, once for the rework.
typeofmd inverts the order. The audit is free and comes before any contract. If the audit reveals the problem is smaller than you thought, the quote gets smaller. If it reveals the problem is out of my wheelhouse — a mobile-first iOS rebuild, a compliance-heavy ML system — you get a referral to someone I'd trust with my own code, not a stretched-thin yes.
Integrity also shows up in how contracts end. No lock-in clauses, no proprietary platforms, no "call us first" handover. When the engagement finishes, your team owns everything: the code, the runbooks, the observability. The door is held open, not closed.
- Free system audit before any contract is signed
- Referral network when the problem isn't a fit — no stretched-thin yes
- Anti-lock-in contracts: standard licences, your infra, your accounts
- Full source, runbooks, and ops handover at end of engagement
Story-point sprints measure motion. They don't measure whether the thing you shipped made a number move. The longer a contract runs on velocity metrics, the more the engagement optimises for looking productive instead of being useful.
Every engagement after the audit is scoped against a business metric you actually care about — p99 latency under a specific load, checkout conversion, cloud spend reduction, mean-time-to-recovery. That metric lives in the SOW, in the shared dashboard, and on the invoice. When the metric moves, the milestone releases. When it doesn't, we dig in before we bill.
This is harder to sell and harder to scope than hourly. It's also the only model where the incentives of the consultant and the client actually point in the same direction. If I can hit your target in four weeks instead of twelve, we're both better off — and I've built the practice so that I can afford to say so.
- Every SOW ties to a named business metric (latency, conversion, $ saved)
- Milestones pay out against the metric, not against hours logged
- Shared observability dashboard — both sides see the same numbers
- Renewal gate: no metric movement, no renewal conversation
See how it runs, end to end.
Methodology is principle. Process is the shape the work actually takes — audit, scope, build, hand over.