# Staff Augmentation

> The second engagement model. Engineers embed in your team at an agreed hourly rate, you own the backlog and direct the work.

Source: https://www.koombea.com/staff-augmentation/

---

If you have an engineering team and a backlog you already own, you want capacity you direct. That is Staff Augmentation, billed hourly, and it is a different purchase from an AI Pod.


## When this is the right answer

AI Pods suit a defined outcome. Staff Augmentation suits a defined gap. If your team owns the roadmap, runs its own ceremonies, and simply needs more hands inside that process, buying a committed scope would add a layer you do not want.

In this model, engineers embed in your team at an agreed hourly rate. You set the priorities, you run the standups, and you carry the delivery risk, because you are the one directing the work.

- You own the backlog and direct the work day to day
- Billed hourly at an agreed rate, with no committed scope
- Engineers work inside your process and your tooling
- You carry the delivery risk, because you hold the decisions

## Staff Augmentation or an AI Pod


| | Staff Augmentation | AI Pod |
|---|---|---|
| What you buy | Hours of capacity | Delivered scope, in story points |
| Who owns the backlog | You do | We do, against your priorities |
| Who directs the work | You do | Your Delivery Manager does |
| Who carries delivery risk | You do | We do, on the agreed scope |
| Basis of billing | Hourly rate | Price per story point, agreed upfront |
| What you get weekly | Whatever your process produces | A capacity report of points consumed against items shipped |
| Best when | You need capacity inside a process you run | You need an outcome at a known price |

## What we will not do here

We will not dress this model up in the vocabulary of committed delivery. Hourly capacity is not a delivery guarantee, and the difference between the two matters most on the day a date slips.

We will also tell you when we think you are buying the wrong model. If the work has a definable outcome, a Pod will almost always cost you less for the same result.


## Questions worth asking

### What is the difference between staff augmentation and outsourcing?

Staff augmentation buys capacity. You keep the backlog, run your own ceremonies, and direct the work. The alternative is a committed scope, where we own delivery against a price you agree upfront. Both are on the table here. The choice turns on one question. Do you want to direct the work, or receive a result?
### When is staff augmentation the wrong choice?

When you can define the outcome. Paying hourly for work with a definable outcome leaves the schedule risk with you, and you fund the discovery either way. If you can describe what done looks like, an AI Pod costs you less.
### How quickly can engineers start?

Two weeks from an agreed rate and scope of involvement. No scoping phase runs first. That is the one speed advantage this model holds over a committed scope.
### Can we move to an AI Pod later?

Yes, and teams take this path routinely. They start hourly while the roadmap still moves, then switch to a committed scope once a phase holds still long enough to price. The engagement changes, the people do not.