0004 — External build partner engagement model

Date: 2026-04-14 Status: proposed (Claire asked for engineering cost estimates; full engagement model pending Operating Council approval)

Context

Claire's April 14 feedback flagged a real constraint: COE cohort work produces validated initiatives, but Balsam may not have enough internal build capacity to turn those into production systems. Without a path from cohort to delivery, the COE generates a backlog of ideas with nowhere to land.

France has committed 20% of pod capacity for COE-validated work during the founding period. That helps for work close to existing Balsam systems, but it won't absorb every initiative. External build partners close the gap.

Claire also asked for engineering cost estimates for holistic budgeting — to compare total COE investment (retainer + build partner engagements) against what the PLM implementation and licensing would have cost.

Decision

External build partners are engaged when:

  • A COE cohort produces a validated initiative that needs production-grade engineering.
  • The work doesn't fit internal pod capacity (scope, timeline, or skills).
  • The Operating Council approves the engagement and its budget.

Partner options (ranked by fit, not preference):

  1. Balsam internal pods (France's team) — first choice for work close to existing systems.
  2. Spatialedge — South African data engineering firm (170 people, 23 PhDs, 10 years operating). Strong for data engineering, ML lifecycle, enterprise AI reliability.
  3. Technology vendor direct support (Snowflake, Databricks, Anthropic) — when work fits their wheelhouse and existing contracts cover it.
  4. Goose Group contractors — occasional, for narrow short projects. Priced at cost plus a small management fee.

Pricing reference (Spatialedge):

  • Pod engagement: $20–25k/week for a 3–4 person team
  • Typical project length: 6–12 weeks
  • A focused Balsam project: $80–150k range, scoped as a project

Goose Group's role:

  • Scope engagements with the cohort and partner.
  • Recommend the partner to the Operating Council with rationale.
  • Manage the engagement during delivery (sprint reviews, weekly updates, cohort knowledge transfer).
  • Stay in the work so the cohort's core owners remain connected and the handoff is clean.

Transparency:

  • Partner rates are visible to Balsam. No hidden margin.
  • Where Goose Group brings a subcontractor under its own paper, the subcontractor rate is disclosed.
  • Engagements run on Balsam's business budget, not the COE retainer.

Reasoning

Why external partners, not just internal pods:

  • France's 20% pod commitment covers some but not all initiatives.
  • Some work (data engineering at scale, ML model lifecycle, enterprise AI reliability) is outside the pod team's current capability.
  • External partners bring specialist capacity that Balsam doesn't need to hire full-time.

Why Spatialedge as the named option:

  • Goose Group has an active partnership conversation with them.
  • Their profile fits the data-heavy, workflow-adjacent work likely to come out of Cohort 1 (Product Data).
  • Their rates are competitive — their delivery quality is comparable to tier-1 firms at a fraction of the cost.
  • We can scope and manage engagements on Balsam's behalf, so Balsam doesn't need to create a separate vendor relationship.

Why not commit to Spatialedge exclusively:

  • Goose Group's relationship with them is exploratory as of April 2026. Nothing is committed.
  • Some work will fit other partners better.
  • Over-committing to one partner early narrows optionality.

Why the COE scopes and manages, not Balsam directly:

  • Continuity between cohort work and engineering work. Cohort context travels with the engagement.
  • Goose Group absorbs the partner-management overhead during the founding period as part of the retainer.
  • If Balsam prefers to contract the partner directly, that's fine — we scope and manage without holding paper.

Consequences

  • build-partner.md documents the engagement model in detail.
  • Cohort 1 handoff package will name a specific recommended partner with rationale.
  • The Operating Council sees partner-engagement briefs as part of monthly readouts, not as separate meetings.
  • Engineering spend is transparent in holistic budgeting conversations with Claire.
  • Spatialedge does not get proactively introduced to Balsam until a specific initiative clearly fits their profile.

Open items

  • Firmer pricing from Spatialedge for a Product-Data-shaped engagement (ballpark vs. indicative quote).
  • Procurement process on Balsam's side for partner engagements — does Goose Group contract them, or does Balsam contract directly?
  • Any Balsam-preferred vendors already in place that should be in the rotation.