A validated solution
Proven against real work before a single line goes into hardening, so what gets built for production is the thing worth building.
Technology
From a working prototype to code your team owns.
We co-create the working solution with your team, then rebuild it as production code that runs in your own environment, and put engineers next to your people while it's built.
The situation
The idea is proven.Nothing is in production.
Either the code was never built to last, or nobody was free to build it.
You get to a working solution fast. It gets built with the people who know the problem, tested on real work, thrown away and rebuilt until it holds. That speed is the point. It is also why the result is rarely something you would trust to keep running under real load.
Rebuilding it for production usually means a second project: a different team, a slow handover, months before anything is live again. Or it never gets rebuilt at all, and a prototype quietly becomes the system of record.
The second cause is simpler. The redesign is agreed, the case is clear, and nobody is free to build it. A hire is two quarters away. An external build project starts by repeating your discovery.
The question is what has to happen before it can run in your environment, under your controls, without depending on us to keep it alive.
The method
Prototype fast. Harden it once it's proven.
One path from a validated idea to production code, in two disciplines with different jobs.
Co-create the solution
H3 works alongside your team to create a working solution to the actual problem; fast, disposable, built to learn rather than to last.
Test it on real work
The prototype earns its next step by being tested on live cases by the people who will use it. Your team and ours change what does not hold, before anything is hardened.
Our engineers harden it
We rebuild the validated logic into production-grade code. That is a different discipline from getting an idea to work.
It runs in your environment
Deployed inside your own environment, under your own security and governance controls. The code is yours; it does not live on our infrastructure.
What gets built
Redesign first. Automate second.Agents last.
We do not bring a platform you then depend on. What gets built runs on what you already run.
First question: should the process keep its current shape at all? Redesigning and removing steps beats automating the existing process as-is.
What survives that gets built with the simplest thing that holds, in this order.
Connections to your systems
The integrations that let anything else here touch real records. Deterministic, and usually where the first gain sits.
Automation across the steps
The handovers, checks and re-keying that make a process slow. Automated where the rules hold, escalated where they don't. No model required.
Retrieval on your material
Answers from your documents, data and policies with the source attached, so an answer can be checked instead of trusted.
Agents for a defined piece of work
Not an assistant that answers questions. A system that carries a bounded task end to end, reached for only when the three above cannot do the job.
An agent goes in where deterministic technology cannot do the job, and not before. Most of what gets built is the boring end of that list.
Build capacity
Two ways in.One way out.
Same bench either way. Which one you need depends on what you already have.
You have something that already works
A prototype that proved itself, rebuilt as production code by people whose discipline is exactly that.
You have a decision and nobody to build it
Engineers work next to your people for the length of the build, in weeks rather than the two quarters a hire takes. It asks for a workflow owner with real time in it and someone who owns the systems: the seats that decide whether this holds are yours, not ours.
Both end the same way. Where we keep something running after go-live, the term is stated and so is its end. The number we steer on is the share of AI work you ship without us.
What you get
What your team owns at the end
Four things, in this order.
Production-grade code
Hardened, tested and documented to the standard the first working version was never meant to meet.
Running in your environment
Deployed in your own environment, under your own governance. Nothing runs on H3's infrastructure, and it keeps running if we walk away.
Code your engineers can extend
Handed over in a state your engineers can extend, to the ownership standard we hold our builds to. Where we keep it running for a term, that term ends in the same handover.
The layer under all three horizons.
A better daily workflow (H1), a redesigned process (H2) or an AI-native proposition (H3) all eventually need something to run. This is that layer. It gets called in wherever a validated idea has to become dependable software. And it has an order: the redesign question comes before the build question, because building the current process properly is an expensive way to preserve it.
Built to production standard
Two disciplines, one team.
Co-creation and production-engineering are different work, on purpose.
We work with your team to shape and build the solution, and to test it against the real problem. Then we take what's proven and rebuild it as production code, with the hardening, testing and engineering discipline that a fast prototype was never built for.
Keeping the two apart means each is done properly. First we find out what holds. Then we make it hold.
Where the work needs engineering inside the team, that capacity scales with the engagement. Engineers work alongside your people for the length of the build, and you carry the cost of the build rather than of a permanent bench.
One contract, one accountable party. You engage H3, and we answer for the whole of it.
Commercial fit
Priced per engagement
There is no standard rate for this. The fee depends on what gets built, how much of it, how many engineers sit next to your team, and what running in your environment involves for your setup. It is scoped before you commit. Run-and-maintain is a separate line with a stated term and a stated end.
Questions we hear
Asked in most first conversations
Who actually builds it?
Our engineers, working inside our engagement, next to your people. Co-creating fast and engineering for production are different disciplines, and we keep them apart so each is done properly. You contract with H3 and we answer for the whole of it.
Who owns the code?
You do. It runs inside your own environment, under your own governance, and is handed over in a state your engineers can extend.
Doesn't maintenance make us dependent on you?
It would, if it ran indefinitely. Every run-and-maintain line carries a stated term whose purpose is the handover at its end.
How fast can an engineer start?
Weeks, not quarters: the bench exists before your engagement does. How fast depends on the profile and the clearance your environment requires.
What do you need from us?
A workflow owner with real time in the build, and someone who owns the systems it touches. Plus read access inside the agreed scope: not write access, not production access, not open-ended.
Shouldn't we redesign the process first?
Often, and it is the cheaper answer. We look at what can be removed before what should be built. Where the process itself is the problem, that is Horizon 2 work rather than this.
How we start
Start with what needs to change.
Every engagement begins with one defined result, a clear timeframe and a decision at the end. Here that means scoping the hardening before anyone commits to it.
See how we startBring your prototype to us.
If you have a working solution that proved itself and now needs to run for real, we scope what it takes to get it into your own environment.
Discuss what's blocking progress (opens in a new tab)
30 minutes with a founder. No deck.