— Comparer

In-house team vs a technology partner.

At some point a growing business needs more technology than its founder can carry. The two roads are: hire people and run a team, or bring in a partner who already has the breadth. Neither is automatically right — it depends on your size, how core technology is to what you sell, and whether you can keep a team busy and supervised. Here is the honest version, including where each one wins.

Dites-nous ce dont vous avez besoin

— Les options, côte à côte

Build an in-house team

Idéal pour Companies where technology IS the product, with enough steady work to keep specialists busy and a leader who can manage them.

Là où ça gagne

Full-time focus on your business and deep context that compounds over years.
Direct control over priorities and the ability to reshuffle work day to day.
Institutional knowledge stays in the building — the people who built it are still there next year.
For a software company, a strong internal team is a genuine competitive asset, not a cost centre.

Là où ça coûte

You need breadth no single hire has — web, backend, infrastructure, security, design. Covering all of it means three to five salaries, not one.
A senior engineer in Canada is a six-figure commitment before benefits, and the hiring takes months with a real risk of a bad fit.
Someone has to manage, review, and unblock them — usually the founder, which is the time you were trying to buy back.
A two-person team has a bus-factor problem: one resignation or parental leave and a system has no owner.
Hiring for a project means you over-staff for the quiet months that follow.

Work with a technology partner

Idéal pour Businesses that need senior technical work across several areas but cannot justify — or keep busy — a full in-house team of specialists.

Là où ça gagne

Breadth on day one: web, software, infrastructure, and security from one accountable team instead of five separate hires.
No recruiting, no payroll, no management overhead — you describe the outcome, not supervise the work.
You pay for the work that exists, then scale down without layoffs when it quiets.
Continuity is the partner’s problem, not yours — they cover for absence and turnover internally.
Senior judgement on the architecture, not a junior hire learning on your project.

Là où ça coûte

A partner is not sitting in your standup — context transfer takes a real brief, and the relationship needs tending.
You are one of several clients, so truly instant, all-day-every-day availability is what a dedicated employee gives, not a partner.
For very high, very steady technical volume, an internal team eventually costs less per hour than any outside rate.
The wrong partner leaves you dependent on someone who guards the keys — the right one documents everything and hands it over on request.

— Comment décider

Parcourez la liste et arrêtez-vous à la ligne qui vous ressemble.

Technology is the thing you sell, and you have years of steady work for specialists. Penche vers Build an in-house team
You need senior work across several areas but cannot keep five specialists busy. Penche vers Work with a technology partner
You are the one ending up as the unpaid IT manager and want that time back. Penche vers Work with a technology partner
You have one or two engineers and a bus-factor you lie awake about. Penche vers Work with a technology partner
You can attract, pay, and manage senior people, and the volume justifies it. Penche vers Build an in-house team
The work is real but lumpy — busy quarters and quiet ones. Penche vers Work with a technology partner

— Où SetKernel s’inscrit

We are the partner — and we say so when you should hire instead

SetKernel is built to be the one accountable team across web, software, infrastructure, and security, so a growing business gets senior breadth without standing up a department. But if technology is your actual product and you have steady work for a real team, the honest answer is to hire — and we will tell you that in the first conversation rather than sell you a retainer you will outgrow.
We hand the keys over, on request, always

The real risk with any outside partner is lock-in. We document the architecture, keep your code and accounts in your name, and will hand everything over to an internal hire the day you make one. A partner who is afraid of that day is the wrong partner.
We can also bridge to in-house

A common path is to use a partner now and build a team later. We are happy to run things while you grow, then help you hire, onboard, and transition — because a clean handover is a better outcome than a client who feels trapped.

— Lectures liées

— Questions fréquentes

Is a technology partner just more expensive contractors?

No — and the difference is accountability. A contractor does a defined task and leaves; a partner owns an outcome across disciplines and stays responsible for it. You are not project-managing a partner the way you direct a contractor, and you are not stitching together five separate freelancers who each blame the others. That said, for a single, well-defined, one-off task, a contractor can be the cheaper and perfectly correct choice.

At what size does hiring in-house start to make sense?

Roughly when you have enough steady technical work to keep a specialist fully busy for a year, AND someone who can manage that person well. For most small and mid-sized businesses that point arrives one role at a time — often starting with a single generalist while a partner covers the specialist work around them. There is no clean revenue threshold; it is about volume and whether you want to be in the business of running a technical team.

What if we hire someone and still need help in areas they do not cover?

That is the most common real situation, and a good reason a partner and an in-house hire are not either-or. One internal generalist plus a partner for security, infrastructure, and the heavier builds is often the most cost-effective shape for a mid-sized business. We work alongside in-house staff regularly and treat them as the client-side lead, not competition.

How do we avoid getting locked into a partner?

Insist on three things from anyone you engage: code and accounts in your name, documentation you can read without them, and a written commitment to hand over on request. We do all three as standard. The test of a good partner is whether leaving them would be straightforward — if it would not be, that is the warning sign.

— Dites-nous ce dont vous avez besoin

Vous hésitez sur la voie à suivre ?

Décrivez le problème en deux paragraphes — ce que vous exploitez, ce qui vous freine, à quoi ressemble le résultat. Nous vous dirons honnêtement quelle option convient, même si ce n’est pas nous. Réponse écrite dans un délai d’un jour ouvrable.