Challenge
Nobody on the client side can answer questions or accept demos, so work waits.
Agnotic approach
We require a named product owner with time in the overlap window. Without one, we recommend a hybrid model or do not start.
Engagement Model
Why offshore software development with Agnotic?
You need senior engineers faster than you can hire them, without losing control of scope, quality or code. Agnotic Technologies runs an offshore model from Pune, India with a team in Austin, Texas: fixed scope, agreed overlap hours, weekly demos and CI on every change.
Engineering hub in Pune, IndiaTeam in Austin, TexasAgreed overlap hoursWeekly demos
Trusted by global innovators
Why offshore
Why offshore software development?
Offshore software development means your software is built by an engineering team in another country. At Agnotic Technologies that team is in Pune, India, with a team in Austin, Texas. The reasons to use it are capacity you cannot hire locally, a lower cost base and a delivery model with fixed scope, agreed overlap hours and weekly demos.
Agnotic's engineering hub is in Pune, India, and we have a team in Austin, Texas. The Pune team works in India Standard Time and the Austin team in US Central Time. Before work starts, each engagement agrees the overlap hours for standups, reviews and weekly demos.
Offshore is not right for every project. The table and the failure points below say when it fits and when we recommend a hybrid or local team instead.
How we run it
How do we run an offshore engagement?
Five practices that make the time difference a schedule detail rather than a risk.
1.
Written scope and specs
The first release is fixed in writing, and each feature has a written spec before it is built, so time zones do not block questions.
Specify2.
Overlap hours and standups
Each engagement agrees overlap hours between India Standard Time and your time zone for standups, reviews and decisions.
Overlap3.
Weekly demos
You see working software every week in the overlap window, and accept or redirect before the next sprint.
Demo4.
CI and code review
Every change goes through automated tests and a reviewed pull request in your repository before it is merged.
Review5.
Your accounts, your code
Code lives in your repositories and runs in your cloud accounts from day one. You own the code, infrastructure and documentation throughout.
OwnDecision table
Onshore, offshore or hybrid: which model fits?
We recommend the model that fits the project, including the ones that do not involve our Pune team.
| Model | Fits when | Watch out for | How Agnotic runs it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Onshore (local team) | The work needs daily in-person contact with users, or data cannot leave the country | Hiring time and cost; a small local market for some skills | We recommend it when it fits; our Austin team can lead US-based work |
| Offshore (Pune team) | The scope can be written down, demos can run in agreed overlap hours and a product owner is available | Decisions that wait overnight if the overlap hours are not kept | Fixed scope, overlap hours, weekly demos, CI and code review in your repositories |
| Hybrid (Austin plus Pune) | You want a US-based lead for discovery and stakeholders, with engineering capacity in India | Two time zones to coordinate; the lead must own the handoffs | A US-based lead or fractional CTO with the Pune engineering team |
| Staff extension | Your own engineering lead and process exist and you need capacity or a skill | Onboarding time; the extension follows your process, not ours | Engineers join your sprints, tools and code review under your lead |
A fixed-scope first release can run under any of the last three rows; the model changes who leads, not how the work is reviewed.
When it does not fit
When does offshore development go wrong?
Honest failure points. Some have an engineering fix; some mean offshore is the wrong choice for that project.
Challenge
The scope lives in people's heads and changes every call.
Agnotic approach
Written specs and a fixed first release. Changes are written down and reprioritized, not absorbed.
Challenge
Data residency or contract rules stop the data leaving the country.
Agnotic approach
Engineers work against synthetic or de-identified data in your region, or we recommend a local team.
Challenge
The team is a rotating pool of unnamed engineers.
Agnotic approach
Named engineers and a lead who stay on the engagement, with a handover plan when anyone changes.
Challenge
Time zones turn a one-hour question into a two-day delay.
Agnotic approach
Agreed overlap hours every working day, written async updates and decisions logged in the repository.
Challenge
The code and accounts belong to the vendor at the end.
Agnotic approach
Your repositories and cloud accounts from day one; documentation handed over as part of every release.
Security and data protection
How do we protect your code and data offshore?
Engineering controls on every engagement. Agnotic claims no certification; these are the practices, each one checkable in your own accounts.
- Secure development practices aligned with NIST SP 800-218: threat modelling, dependency scanning and code review before merge
- Access through your identity provider with multi-factor authentication, granted per person and removed on the day someone leaves the engagement
- Least-privilege roles and no implicit trust by network location, in line with the NIST SP 800-207 zero trust principles
- No production or personal data on engineer laptops; development runs against synthetic or de-identified data
- Protected branches in your repositories that require reviewed pull requests and passing tests before merge
- Audit logs in your cloud accounts, so you can see every access and change without asking us
- Confidentiality terms and, where health data is involved, a business associate agreement, signed before work starts
Checklist
What should you check before choosing an offshore partner?
Ask these of Agnotic and of anyone else you are comparing.
Who exactly is on the team
Names, roles and how long each person has been with the company.
Where the code lives
Your repositories and cloud accounts, or theirs.
How demos run
Weekly, in your overlap hours, with working software rather than slides.
What is written down
Specs, decisions and runbooks you can read without a meeting.
How access is granted and removed
Per person, through your identity provider, with a leaver process.
What happens when it ends
A handover plan with documentation and tests, not a renewal conversation.
Who uses it
Who uses the offshore model?
Four situations where the model fits well.
Startup founders
A fixed-scope first release with senior engineers they could not hire locally in time.
Enterprise engineering leaders
Capacity for a roadmap item without a long hiring cycle, run under their own process.
Healthcare and regulated teams
HIPAA-ready builds with data protection controls that pass a security review.
Product companies with a US lead
A hybrid model with a US-based lead and the Pune engineering team.
Standards
Standards we work against
The references behind the security and delivery practices above.
NIST SP 800-218NIST SP 800-207OAuth 2.0 / OIDCWCAG 2.2HIPAA Security Rule
Facts and sources
Facts and sources behind the model
Standards and vendor documentation the delivery practices are built on, each linked to its primary source.
NIST SP 800-218, the Secure Software Development Framework, groups secure development practices into four areas: prepare the organization, protect the software, produce well-secured software and respond to vulnerabilities.
Source: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF)NIST SP 800-207 describes zero trust as a set of cybersecurity paradigms that move defenses from static, network-based perimeters to users, assets and resources, with no implicit trust granted on network location alone.
Source: NIST SP 800-207, Zero Trust ArchitectureGitHub protected branch rules can require that every pull request receives a set number of approving reviews before it is merged into the protected branch.
Source: GitHub Docs, About protected branches
Frequently Asked Questions
It depends on the scope, not on where the team sits. We agree a fixed first release on the scoping call and plan the schedule from that scope, with weekly demos to keep it visible.
The Pune team works in India Standard Time and the Austin team in US Central Time. The overlap hours for standups, reviews and weekly demos are agreed before work starts, and written specs and updates cover the rest of the day.
The main saving is the hiring you do not have to do and a lower cost base for senior engineers. We do not publish rates; the scoping call gives you a fixed first release you can compare against other options.
Written specs before the build, written async updates in your tools, agreed overlap hours for standups and decisions, and weekly demos of working software. Decisions are logged in the repository so nobody waits for a meeting.
Yes. The staff extension model puts our engineers inside your sprints, tools and code review. For a dedicated team, integrations with your existing systems are scoped in the first release.
Yes. A fixed-scope first release is the usual starting point. We agree the users, workflows and integrations it covers in writing, and anything else waits for a later phase.
Engineers use AI coding tools for drafts, tests and reviews, and every change still goes through human code review, automated tests and the same release checklist. AI never merges or deploys on its own.
When nobody on your side can own decisions in the overlap window, when data cannot leave your country and cannot be de-identified, or when the work is daily in-person discovery with users. In those cases we suggest a hybrid or local team.