Embedded Engineering Staff Augmentation
Named firmware, hardware and embedded software engineers who join your team, work in your repository and your tracker, and are booked to named tasks you can audit. No rotating pool, no bench substitutions, and a written answer to what happens when you stop.
What We Deliver
What does embedded engineering staff augmentation actually include?
Engineers, not a headcount line. Each person is named, interviewed by you, and stays on your work rather than being moved when another account needs them. They work in your repository, your tracker and your review process, attend your stand-ups, and book time to named tasks so a month of work arrives as a list you can read rather than an invoice you have to trust.
How the engagement runs
- You interview and accept each engineer before they start, and you are told if anyone is ever proposed to change
- They work in your repository, your tracker and your code review process, not a parallel one of ours
- Every hour booked to a named task, so you can see exactly what a month bought
- A named point of escalation on our side for the full duration, so you are never chasing a mailbox
- Work reviewed to the same standard as our own programmes, including design review before anything is fabricated
- Anything beyond the agreed scope raised as its own line item and signed by both sides before it starts
What stays yours
- The code, committed to your repository under your organisation from the first commit
- The intellectual property, assigned to you in the statement of work before anyone writes a line
- Access granted per named person and revoked per named person, with a documented leavers process
- The context: notes, decisions and documentation written into your systems, not carried away in someone's head
- A written notice period, agreed at the start rather than negotiated in a difficult month
- The option to convert the engagement into a scoped project, or to bring the work in house
Roles We Add
Which engineering roles can you add to your team?
The roles below are the ones we are asked for most, and they are the deepest parts of our bench. If the gap you have is not on this list, say what the work is and we will tell you honestly whether we are the right answer.
Firmware and embedded software
Driver and application development on microcontrollers, real-time behaviour, low-power work, communication stacks and update paths. The largest part of our bench and the most common request.
- Firmware engineers
- Embedded Linux and platform engineers
- Application and interface developers
Hardware and Printed Circuit Boards
Schematic design, PCB layout, design for manufacture, bring-up and board-level debug, including the reviews that catch faults before a board is fabricated. Process driven post-fabrication to manufacturing.
- Schematic and PCB design engineers
- Bring-up and debug engineers
- Design for manufacture review
Test, verification and mechanical
The roles teams under-hire and then regret. Test case authoring and execution against a written requirement, verification campaigns, and enclosure and mechanical design.
- Test and verification engineers
- Mechanical and enclosure design
- Certification support
Most requests start with one firmware engineer and grow into a mixed team once the first piece of work lands. That is a healthier path than hiring five people in one month.
When Not To Use Us
When is staff augmentation the wrong answer?
More often than the industry admits, and we would rather tell you before you sign than after. Augmentation works when you have a clear plan, someone to own it, and a specific skill gap in the way. It fails when it is used to buy a plan you do not have yet. Adding engineers to an unowned problem multiplies the coordination cost and produces the appearance of progress.
Three cases where we will recommend something else. If nobody on your side has time to direct the work day to day, a scoped project with acceptance criteria is safer, because then the outcome is our problem rather than your management overhead. If the requirement is genuinely unknown, a feasibility phase answers the question for a fraction of the cost of a team exploring it. And if what you actually need is a whole product, hardware, firmware, enclosure, testing and certification, then a full programme with gates is the honest shape, not a queue of individuals.
Augmentation is the right answer when
- You have a clear plan and a person on your side who owns it
- The gap is a specific skill, not a general shortage of direction
- You want the knowledge to accumulate in your systems and your team
- The work will last long enough that ramp-up is worth paying for
- You would rather manage engineers than manage a vendor
- You need to move before a permanent hire could realistically start
If two or three of those are not true, ask us for the alternative. We will scope it.
Ramp and Handover
How does an engineer actually join, and what happens when they leave?
Joining is deliberately unglamorous: an access review, a walk through your architecture and your review process, and a first small piece of real work that produces something reviewable in the first week. We do not bill for a fortnight of reading. If an engineer cannot be useful early, that is a sign they are the wrong fit and we would rather find out in week one than month three.
Leaving is planned from the start. Notes and decisions are written into your systems as work proceeds, so context does not sit in one person’s head. There is a written notice period, and a handover checklist that covers open work, known issues and anything half-finished. Access is revoked per named person against a documented leavers process. Ending an engagement should be an access review, not an archaeology project. More on our medical device software development page.
For teams building regulated products
- Engineers who have worked inside a customer quality system and understand why the records exist
- Documentation produced in the form your quality system expects, as the work proceeds
- Design review and traceability habits that survive an audit rather than being reconstructed for one
- Engineers who work to the standards your submission needs, listed by identifier on our medical device page
Quality
How is an augmented engineer held to a standard?
By the same mechanisms as our own programmes, because an engineer who is measured differently behaves differently. None of the four below depends on you supervising anybody closely.
Booked to named tasks
Every hour sits against a named task rather than a monthly lump sum, so a month of work is a list you can audit instead of a number you have to accept.
Reviewed, not just delivered
Design work goes through documented review with a named reviewer, and hardware is reviewed before anything is fabricated, whoever drew it.
Defects with owners
Findings are logged with the observed behaviour and a named owner, and closed before release. Nothing is carried as a verbal caveat.
Scope changes in writing
Work outside what was agreed is raised on its own line and signed by both sides. Nothing is absorbed silently and nothing arrives as a surprise on an invoice.
Why Pinetics
How do you choose a staff augmentation partner for embedded work?
100,000+ engineering hours delivered and counting.
The test is whether the partner will talk you out of the wrong engagement. We are a product engineering company that also augments teams, not a body shop with an engineering brochure, which is why this page has a section on when not to use us. The engineers you would be adding spend the rest of their time taking whole products from requirement to production, and that is what you are actually renting.
What we bring
- Engineers whose day job is whole-product engineering, not only filling seats
- Founder-led engineering, with our leadership reviewing work personally rather than through a delivery layer
- Leadership across India, the USA and Europe, so reviews and escalation sit in your working hours
- A statement of work carrying scope, acceptance criteria, escalation path, team composition and intellectual property terms before you sign
Expertise
The engineers you add come off the same bench that delivers our own programmes, under leadership carrying 20+ years in electronics and firmware.
Technology
Depth across firmware, hardware, embedded platforms and test, so a team can grow into the roles you discover you need rather than the ones you guessed at.
Transparency
Named engineers, named tasks, tracked defects and a repository you own from the first commit. Nothing about the engagement is invisible to you.
Common Questions
What should you ask before adding offshore engineers to your team?
Three questions settle most of it. Will the same named people stay on your work, or can they be moved to another account? Whose repository and accounts does the work live in? And what does the leavers process look like on the day you stop? Ours are answered in the statement of work before you sign it.
On a per-engineer monthly basis for augmentation, or time-and-materials where the work is intermittent. Materials, third-party licences and laboratory fees are billed at actuals and only with your prior written approval. There is a practical minimum, because ramp-up costs real time and a very short engagement wastes your money and our effort: we will tell you if what you are asking for is too short to be worth it. Rates on request.
Dedicated. Each engineer is named and works on your products only. If we ever need to propose a change of person, you are told with notice and a handover, and you can say no. A partner who moves people quietly between accounts is selling you a pool and calling it a team.
Yes, and you should. You interview and accept every engineer before they start. If someone is not right for your team, that is a normal outcome and we will propose someone else rather than argue.
Firmware and embedded roles are the fastest because that is the deepest part of our bench. Hardware, test and mechanical depend on current commitments. We will give you a real date rather than an encouraging one, and if the honest answer is that you should hire permanently instead, we will say that too.
You do, on the technical work, because that is the point of augmentation. On our side there is a named point of escalation for the full duration, covering the engagement itself: performance, continuity, scope and anything commercial. If you would rather not manage the work at all, you want a scoped project, and we would rather sell you that.
You do, from the first commit. Code goes into your repository under your organisation, the intellectual property is assigned to you in the statement of work before any engineering begins, and access is granted and revoked per named person. Nothing needs to be recovered from us at the end, because nothing was held on our side.
There is a working overlap every day, and our leadership works across India, the USA and Europe so reviews and escalation happen in your hours. We will be straight about the limits: a team in India will not sit fully inside a US Pacific working day, and any partner who promises that is either overselling or planning to burn people out.
Both, and both are normal. Many engagements start as augmentation and become a scoped programme once the shape of the work is clear, which usually costs you less. And if you want to bring it in house, the notes, decisions and documentation are already in your systems, which is what makes that possible.
Sometimes not, and the section above says when. If nobody on your side can direct the work, if the requirement is still unknown, or if what you need is a whole product rather than extra hands, a scoped project or a feasibility phase will serve you better. Our product development page covers the full programme shape.
Yes, and most first conversations start that way. Send yours or ask for ours.