Staffing, cadence and exit, answered in full.

In forward-deployed teams of two or three senior people. On a build team that is an Agentic Lead who owns the operating model and decision rights, a Forward-Deployed Engineer who builds and ships inside your estate, and an Adoption Lead who helps your people use and improve the new workflow. Squads are founder-led, with James Rooney personally accountable for every engagement. Associates come through work he knows at first hand or referrals from people he has delivered with, and every practitioner on your engagement is senior.

Measurable value is delivered every month. That is the monthly cadence engagements are structured around, and it means you can judge the work on evidence within the first thirty days rather than at a milestone months away. The squad commits to it and reports against it; a month that delivers no measurable value is reported as a failed month. Hold us to that from month one. It is why engagements are retainer-shaped, not milestone-shaped.

No. The AI Readiness Audit is £44,000, fixed in writing before the engagement starts, and it does not move with the number of business units in scope, how much prototyping is involved, or how many sites need time on the ground. Those things shape what goes into the four weeks and what comes out of them, which is what the scoping conversation settles. They are not a lever on the price. If the work genuinely will not fit inside four weeks, we say so before you commit rather than repricing halfway through.

Retainer engagements run on 30 days' notice from either side, and the fixed-price audit is a defined deliverable rather than a subscription. You own all work product and documentation produced up to the point of exit, including any code written inside your estate. Tenhaw would rather stop a bad engagement at month two than defend it to month nine.

You own the capability. Recruiting your permanent team is a stated deliverable of the retainer and programme engagements, the exit date is agreed at kickoff rather than negotiated at the end, and on a build engagement the final sixty days are a documented handover with a decreasing-involvement taper. The commercial model is designed so that the engagement ends.

Structurally, in four ways. First, working software is deployed on your infrastructure, in your repositories, under your controls and your organisation's policies, so nothing needs migrating off Tenhaw's estate when the engagement ends. Second, your own permanent people are upskilled by pair-programming with ours for the whole build, and that transfer is measured rather than assumed. Third, the method is published in full and free to adopt without hiring us. Fourth, the exit is contractual: thirty days' notice either way, the exit date and taper agreed at kickoff, and you own all deliverables, documentation and code on payment.

A forward deployed engineer works from inside your organisation rather than from a supplier's office: in your repositories, your Slack, your stand-ups and the rooms where decisions actually get made. They build against your data, ship through your own pipelines and pair with your engineers while doing it, so what lands is a system your people helped write rather than one delivered over a wall. On a build team the engineer sits alongside an agentic lead and an adoption lead, under partner oversight from James Rooney, and everyone is screened to BS7858 standard before any client access. They are accountable for shipping, not sitting in an advisory seat.

Kickoff, access, and something built before the month is out. A UK AI delivery partner should spend week one settling what the outcomes are, what each is worth to your business in currency, who owns which decisions once an agent takes part of the work, and when the engagement ends, with the exit date agreed at kickoff rather than negotiated later. Screening and account provisioning run alongside that, because access is usually the practical constraint. From there the team works in your stand-ups and your repositories rather than behind a discovery phase, and you should be able to judge month one on something working rather than on a plan.

It depends whether they have refused or simply have not been convinced. If leadership has ruled out changing roles and decision rights, we are the wrong firm, because every engagement moves who owns the decisions an agent now makes and no amount of tooling substitutes for that. If they are unconvinced rather than opposed, that is what the AI Readiness Audit is for, four weeks at £44,000 fixed, ending in working prototypes against your own data and a costed sequence your board can argue with. A recommendation to stop is a valid outcome, and week four is a cheap place to reach it.

No, and it is the clearest item on our not-for-you list. Procuring licences and configuring a tenancy is work a reseller or your existing licensing partner will do faster and more cheaply than we will. What Tenhaw sells is the harder half: deciding which workflows go to agents, redesigning the roles and decision rights around them, building the systems inside your estate, and getting people to actually work the new way. If the tools are already bought and nothing has changed yet, that is a different conversation, and the fixed-price audit is where it starts.

Both, though the documents exist because someone needs them rather than to fill a deliverables list. The audit ends in working prototypes against your own data alongside a sequenced plan with costs attached; a design engagement produces the target operating model, the architecture underneath it and the governance around agent decisions; a build engagement ends in a documented handover as well as a running system. What you will not get is a strategy deck with nothing behind it, because a deck does not change how anyone works. You own all of it, code and documentation alike, up to the point of exit.

Because a milestone pays for a plan being defended and a retainer pays for value arriving. The delivery engagements are retainer-shaped. The team commits to a measurable amount of value every month and reports against it, and either side can end the arrangement on 30 days' written notice, so your protection is a monthly exit rather than a payment schedule to argue over. The two ways in are the exception and are genuinely fixed price, the £44,000 AI Readiness Audit and the £20k–£55k Agentic Proof of Concept, because both end on a date with a defined deliverable and the scope risk sits with us.

Not usefully, and we say plainly that a one-week quick fix is not what we sell, because a week is long enough to demo something and far too short to change how anyone works. The smallest real thing we sell is an Agentic Proof of Concept, £20k–£55k fixed over two to four weeks, which builds a working system against one live workflow rather than a demo assembled outside your systems. The AI Readiness Audit runs four weeks at £44,000 fixed and ends in working prototypes against your own data. If a result inside a week is genuinely the requirement, we are the wrong call and will say so.

Yes, and that is the whole list. Every published figure, day rate and engagement price alike, is exclusive of VAT, and expenses are pre-agreed before they are incurred and charged at cost rather than marked up. There is no management fee, no licence, no seat count and no annual uplift hidden underneath, because every price derives from three published day rates at twenty billable days a month and you can check the arithmetic yourself. Where travel is going to be material, weeks on a site well away from London for instance, we agree it as part of the scope rather than surfacing it later.

Yes, and it is the single biggest variable you control. Your engineers pair with ours for the whole build rather than for a handover fortnight at the end, so the people you nominate are working on the real system while it is being built, and the transfer is measured rather than assumed. If nobody can be freed up you still get the delivery, but the capability leaves when we do, which is the one outcome the model exists to prevent. Agreeing who is being freed up at kickoff is a better conversation than discovering in month five that nobody was.

Yes, before you hire anyone. The standard is 72 open-source rules with stable identifiers, RFC 2119 severities and the rationale for each, published as an engineering handbook on GitHub and written to be enforced by an agent rather than remembered by a human. It is what our engineers build to inside your repositories, so your own reviewers can hold the work against a public document rather than a supplier's private conventions. The method above it, The Tenhaw Way, is published in full and free to adopt without hiring us.

It cannot on its own, and it is not designed to. Two or three senior people carry the design, the build and the adoption, but the change itself is carried by your own managers and engineers, which is why the decision rights move inside your management structure rather than sitting with a supplier, and why adoption is somebody's named job and gets measured rather than hoped for. The team does not grow as the programme does. If what you need is hundreds of people mobilised across a dozen countries next quarter, a large consultancy is the right call and we will say so on the first call.

Somebody owns the number and reports it every month. On a build team the adoption lead owns the part that usually fails, getting people to work the new way, and adoption is measured against a baseline taken from your own systems before the change rather than inferred from licence counts or training completions. Usage that does not move is treated as a delivery problem rather than a people problem, which usually means the workflow was redesigned around the agent on paper but not in the roles, the handoffs and the targets people are actually judged on. That is fixable while we are still in the building.

Judge it on the scale James Rooney has already worked at, and on how cheaply you can stop. He co-led the design and piloting of HSBC Global Payment Solutions' target operating model for 500 teams and a $450 million budget, due for global rollout in 2026, and advised 150+ teams against a $102 million budget at HSBC. The agentic evidence is younger and labelled as such, a two-week proof of concept inside a live London specialty insurance business, now being productionised. The £44,000 audit runs four weeks and stands alone, so the first commitment is small. If your constraint is coverage, a dozen workstreams wanting people at once, a larger firm sells that better.

Three buyers, and better said now than in month two. If you want licences procured and a tenancy configured with nothing else changed, your licensing partner will do that faster and for less. If the plan is already written and you want hands to work through it, hire contractors directly and keep the margin, because what we sell is a directed team of two or three that owns the outcome. And if you want a supplier to run the system for you for years, buy a managed service, because our exit date is agreed at kickoff and recruiting your permanent team is a stated deliverable. For those three jobs, the alternative is the better buy.

Start with the twelve case studies, because each one states its own evidence basis. They say whether the work was Tenhaw's or a role James Rooney held inside the organisation, as the three HSBC studies and the Discovery+ launch were, whether a number was measured, projected or a scope figure, and whether it reached production or stopped at a pilot. Nine of the ten organisations behind them are named, so anyone in your network who was in the room can be asked without us in the middle. The exception is the current agentic engagement, confidential at the client's request and written up as a proof of concept rather than offered as a reference call.

Two or three senior seats, decision rights that sit inside your own management structure, and terms you can hold us to. A build team is three practitioners at £70k–£85k a month and a design pair is two at £35k–£55k, both derived from published day rates at twenty billable days a month. Partner oversight from James Rooney sits inside that fee rather than as an account-management layer on top, and the fee is flat rather than billed against timesheets. Each month carries a value target in currency, and a month that moves none of it is reported as a failed month. A larger firm's fee buys coverage and brand safety instead; where that is the requirement, buy that.

Yes. Tenhaw LTD is registered in England and Wales, company number 12735685, incorporated 10 July 2020, VAT registered and based in London, with the register entry linked from the contact page, so you contract with a UK entity and are invoiced in sterling. Every engagement runs under a signed Statement of Work, with a Master Services Agreement where your legal team needs one, and the contract and data protection documents are standing templates rather than things drafted per deal. The commercial terms are published rather than negotiated late: retainers run on 30 days' written notice either way, the exit date is agreed at kickoff, and you own all work product, documentation and code produced up to the point of exit.

Agentic AI is software in which a model plans and acts over several steps towards a goal, calling tools and adapting to what comes back rather than answering a single prompt. Tenhaw embeds teams of two or three senior people to design and build those systems inside a client's own estate, and publishes its method, The Tenhaw Way, in full. Inside a large organisation the model is rarely the hard part. The operating model around it is: who owns the decisions the system now makes, what it is permitted to touch, how autonomous it is allowed to be, and how a wrong call gets caught.

An AI agent is a system that pursues a goal by choosing its own sequence of steps and using tools to carry them out, checking each result before deciding what to do next. Tenhaw's forward-deployed engineers build them inside the client's own repositories, to a 72-rule open-source engineering handbook published on GitHub. A chatbot answers questions; an agent acts on systems of record. Robotic process automation follows a fixed script and breaks when the form changes; an agent reasons about the change. To run safely in a business it needs four things beyond the model: tools with scoped permissions, memory of what it has already done, evaluation against known-good cases, and a named human escalation path.

Retainers in advance, fixed-price work against milestones, and thirty days to pay. Tenhaw's published terms set out all three: retainer engagements such as an Agentic Design Team at £35,000–£55,000 a month are invoiced monthly in advance, fixed-price engagements such as the £44,000 AI Readiness Audit are invoiced against agreed milestones, and invoices are payable within 30 days. Fees are set out in the Statement of Work rather than in a separate schedule, so what you sign and what you are invoiced against are the same document. Which milestones a fixed-price engagement bills against is settled in that document, so they are worth agreeing alongside the scope rather than after it.

In writing, before the additional work starts. A Tenhaw fixed-price fee does not change unless you request a change of scope. The £44,000 AI Readiness Audit and the £20,000–£55,000 Agentic Proof of Concept fix the deliverable as well as the number, and details such as how many prototype workflows get built are settled before kickoff rather than argued in week three. On a monthly retainer the team does not grow, so a new priority is traded against an existing one inside the same monthly value commitment. What a month can absorb without dropping something depends on what you already asked for that month, so the trade is made with your sponsor rather than quietly.

Nominate one, empower them, and expect them to decide things, because Tenhaw's terms make that your side of the engagement rather than a courtesy. The sponsor does three jobs. They clear timely access to the people, systems, data and decision-makers identified in the Statement of Work, and where a delay there affects the timeline we flag it in writing at the time rather than at the end. They make the calls when decision rights move, once an agent takes part of the work. And they take the monthly report of value committed against value delivered, including any month reported as a failed month. How much of their week that takes depends on how contested those decisions already are.

Tenhaw publishes no pause rate, so a retainer either runs or it stops. Retainers are invoiced monthly in advance and end on thirty days' written notice from either side, so a freeze means notice now and nothing invoiced beyond it rather than a holding fee for people who are not working. A fixed-price engagement also ends on written notice, with fees payable for work performed and committed costs incurred to that point. The code and documentation are already in your own repositories, so stopping is cheap by design. What a restart costs is mostly the context your own people were holding, which is why the pairing during the build matters more here than the notice clause does.

Ask first, because Tenhaw's published terms carry a mutual non-solicitation clause. During an engagement and for six months afterwards, neither party will knowingly solicit the other's personnel who were directly involved, except through a general public advertisement not targeted at them. It runs both ways, so your people are covered on the same basis as ours. Worth knowing that recruiting your own permanent team is a stated deliverable of the retainer and programme engagements, so the intended destination is your people in post rather than ours. Which roles you actually need to recruit into is an output of the operating model work rather than something that clause settles.

The warranty and the commitment are different instruments, and Tenhaw publishes both. The contract warrants that services are performed with reasonable skill and care by suitably qualified personnel, and stops short of warranting a specific business outcome unless an outcome-linked fee is expressly defined in your Statement of Work, which the terms allow for. Liability is capped at the figure named in that document. The monthly value target sits outside the warranty, a reported commitment you judge month by month, backed by thirty days' notice either way rather than by a damages claim. Whether an outcome-linked fee fits depends on whether the value lands inside a period both sides can measure.