AI Adoption for Engineering Teams

This is the service for teams who are past the beginning and stuck.

The licences have been active for months. A few engineers are enthusiastic, most are ambivalent, and someone upstairs is asking why the roadmap looks the same as it did two quarters ago. Nobody can answer, because nobody recorded what “before” looked like.

If you want to start well, the masterclass is the better entry point — it’s training-led, fixed-scope and fast. This service is diagnostic-led: it assumes something is already wrong and sets out to find out what.

The distinction that matters

Most stalled rollouts are not stalled on tooling. They are stalled on one of three things, and they need different fixes:

• The assistant has no useful context. It writes generic code because nothing told it about your conventions, your domain, or your architecture. Fixable in days.
• Review hasn’t changed to match. Output volume doubled and review capacity didn’t, so the queue grew and standards quietly slipped. Fixable, but it is a practice change, not a configuration change.
• The codebase can’t absorb it. Boundaries are unclear enough that more output genuinely is more risk. This is architecture work, and no amount of prompting fixes it.

The diagnostic exists to tell you which of those you have, because the wrong fix applied confidently is how another quarter disappears.

Pricing

Adoption Review — from €6,000

The diagnostic. Delivery baseline, maturity placement per team, findings, and a prioritised plan. €6,000 covers up to two teams; each additional team is €900.

You keep the plan whether or not you continue with me. If the review concludes your problem is two teams needing coaching rather than a programme, I will say so.

Implementation

Delivered as Sprint cohorts on the same terms as the masterclass packages — 20 hours at €10,000 or 40 hours at €16,000 per cohort of up to two teams, with further cohorts at €9,000. The masterclass page has the full detail, including the four-hour daily cap.

Where the review finds the constraint is structural rather than behavioural, the work moves to architecture consulting instead — same conversation, different tools.

All prices exclude VAT. Travel within the Netherlands is included; elsewhere it is billed at cost.

This is a good fit when

• Assistants are rolled out but the delivery impact is unproven or disputed.
• Engineers report the output “needs so much fixing it’s faster to write it myself.”
• Review has become the bottleneck, or quality signals are drifting the wrong way.
• You need a defensible answer for leadership about what the spend is returning.

It is not a good fit when

You want a headcount-reduction business case. I have not seen assistants deliver that reliably, and I would rather tell you before an engagement than during one.