We deliver projects and programmes with our own teams and carry the result, rather than supplying people for you to direct. That distinction sounds commercial and is not. In Belgium it is the line between a service contract and something the law treats very differently, and it decides how the engagement has to be written before it decides anything else.
The Belgian rule a delivery engagement has to stay clear of. What keeps you clear is a supplier carrying the outcome, not one supplying people.
Any instruction you give our team has to be, and listed in advance. That is not paperwork.
For the result. Where it is shared, it is not a delivery engagement in the first place.
Scope and acceptance criteria
Written before anyone starts building.
A team with its own lead
Directed by us, working with you.
Agile execution and cadence
Delivering with flexibility and speed.
Multi-vendor coordination
Where several suppliers share a programme.
Risk mitigation and change
Proactively managed, not reported late.
Governance and reporting
Against milestones rather than activity.
Handover and continuity
So the result survives our departure.
One clear owner
A named lead answerable for the result rather than for the hours. When a milestone slips, the talk is about the plan rather than about whose people were on site that week, which is the difference between a supplier and a staffing arrangement.
Acceptance, not activity
Milestones tied to something you can accept or reject. Progress measured in delivered work rather than in days consumed, which also means the incentive to extend runs the right way.
A structure that holds up
The engagement written so the reality matches the contract: our lead directs our team, any instruction from you is documented in advance, and the file survives an inspection.
Real continuity
Documentation, knowledge transfer and a handover planned from the start rather than assembled in the last fortnight. A delivered project nobody can operate afterwards has solved a schedule, not a problem.
With us | In-house | Contractors | Consultancy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What you buy | A result, with a team behind it | Nothing, you already have it | Capacity, by the day | A result, plus advice |
| Who directs | Our lead, working with yours | You do, entirely | You do, openly | Their partner |
| Who carries risk | Sparagus, on the deliverable | You do, entirely | You do, openly | Them, at a price |
| Payment basis | On milestones and acceptance | Salaries, whatever happens | On days worked | On the engagement |
| Fits when | The scope can be defined | The capability exists and is free | You have the lead, not the hands | The problem is not yet defined |
If you already know what to build and who leads, you want capacity, not us.
Scoping and acceptance
What gets delivered, what does not, how it will be accepted, and who decides that on your side.
Team and governance
The team assembled with its own lead, the reporting cadence agreed, and the instruction framework written.
Build and iterate
Delivery in increments you can accept, with change handled through a route rather than a conversation.
Acceptance and handover
Final acceptance against the criteria set at the start, documentation transferred, and your team able to operate what was built. Post-delivery support is written into the engagement rather than promised verbally.
The Belgian rule a delivery engagement has to stay clear of. What keeps you clear is a supplier carrying the outcome, not one supplying people.
Any instruction you give our team has to be, and listed in advance. That is not paperwork.
For the result. Where it is shared, it is not a delivery engagement in the first place.
Software and application
Custom development and modernisation, where acceptance criteria can be written properly.
Infrastructure and platforms
Migrations and modernisation, where the risk sits in the cutover rather than in the build.
Data and business intelligence
Genuinely project-shaped work, and the easiest to define an outcome for.
Embedded and connected systems
Where hardware timelines set the plan and software has to fit around them.
Industrial engineering
Site-based programmes, where a separate set of Belgian obligations applies.
Testing and validation
Clean acceptance criteria, which makes it the most straightforward to contract.
Financial services
Where a delivery engagement now sits inside the ICT third-party question as well as the labour one.
Automotive and manufacturing
Production dates that do not move, which makes acceptance planning the whole exercise.
Energy and utilities
Multi-site and multi-vendor, where coordination is most of the delivery risk.
Tell us what has to exist at the end and how you would know it works. You get a view of whether it can be contracted as a delivery, and what it would take.
Driving business success with expert solutions.
