Pick the model that matches the shape of your gap, not a generic "services" package.
What it is: Engineers billed by time actually spent, embedded into your existing flow.
Best for: Unpredictable or evolving scope.
What you get: Flexibility to scale as the project's real shape emerges.
What it is: A full dedicated team running your workload independently.
Best for: Sustained, high-volume work.
What you get: Predictable capacity without hiring/managing that team yourself.
What it is: Fixed scope, fixed price — spec in, finished deliverable out.
Best for: Well-defined projects, outcome ownership.
What you get: A complete tape-out-ready deliverable, no scope-creep risk.
What it is: One or a few engineers embedded into your existing team.
Best for: A specific skill gap on an otherwise-staffed team.
What you get: Fast-fit engineers who plug in without disrupting your workflow.
What it is: An ongoing capability center, run by us — not a project.
Best for: Long-term design capacity without building it internally.
What you get: A dedicated center reporting outcomes on your cadence.
Design services engagements running via T&M and ODC models for existing clients.
Engineering-first, founder-led — VLSI wasn't added as a category to an existing services catalog, it's the entire business.