The method we run, the commitments we make, and what we put at risk to earn a first engagement.
Most firms open with proof. We open with terms you can hold us to.
OneCluster was founded in 2026. You will find no anonymised case studies here, no invented metrics and no testimonials from clients who do not exist - and no more mention of our age than that, because what should decide this is the people, the method and what we are willing to put at risk.
Every commitment below is written into the engagement agreement, not left as a sentiment on a website.
Ask for any of it in a first conversation. None of it is gated behind a signature.
How we intend to run every engagement. Designed to leave capability behind rather than dependency.
The real problem behind the brief, surfaced with your people rather than around them.
1–2 weeksOptions, trade-offs and a direction worth betting on. Board-facing, delivery-informed.
2–4 weeksSquad stood up, architecture agreed, first slice live in production.
6–12 weeksConnect the new into everything that already exists. Data contracts first.
4–8 weeksCoach your people into the roles that stay after we leave.
3–12 monthsReplicate the pattern, step back, stay on call.
OngoingAnyone can promise delivery. These are the four ways we make that promise cost us something if we get it wrong.
Two weeks, no fee, no obligation. You keep the output whether or not you hire us - including if you use it to brief another firm.
Where your throughput actually goes: cycle time, handoffs, approval gates, rework.
Written reportThe constraints in your estate that will decide what is cheap and what is expensive to change.
Diagram + notesWhat we think will go wrong in the next two quarters, ranked, with the cheapest mitigations.
Ranked listThe smallest piece worth shipping, scoped and priced - so you can compare us against anyone.
Scope + priceWe do this because it is the fastest way for you to judge our thinking, and because a client who understands their own delivery problem is a better client. The risk that you take the report elsewhere is ours to carry.
A young firm is supposed to take anything. These are the engagements we would decline, and the reasoning is the same one we would apply to your project.
Staff augmentation with no outcome attached. We cannot be accountable for delivery we do not shape, and billing by the head rewards the wrong thing.
If the platform is chosen, the architecture fixed and the date immovable, you need implementers. Hiring us to validate it wastes your money.
All three cannot hold in a complex estate. Any firm that agrees to all three is planning to argue with you later. We would rather argue now.
If we cannot talk to the people who use the system, we are guessing. Expensive guessing is still guessing.
A programme in trouble usually needs different decisions, not more effort. Without authority to change how it works, we would just be adding cost.
If we do not have the right people free, we will say so and point you elsewhere rather than backfill with juniors.
No case studies we cannot substantiate, no borrowed metrics, no testimonials we did not receive. It is why this site looks the way it does.
We would rather show a working slice in your environment than describe a plan for one.
Every engagement carries a handover plan from the first week. Dependency on us is a design failure.
Small crews of people who have done the work before, not a pyramid staffed to a margin target.
If an approach is not working we say so while it is still cheap to change, in plain words.
Regulation, legacy and internal politics are the problem to design around, not distractions from it.
Forty-five minutes with a partner, then a two-week diagnostic at no cost that is yours to keep. Ask us for references before you commit to anything.