What we build on, and who stands behind it.
A supplier's technology choices decide what you can operate, who else you can hire, and what it costs to leave. They belong in an evaluation, not in a brochure.
Two different things get called a partnership. One is a programme you join, with an application and a review behind it. The other is a technology you happen to use. Only the first appears here as an accreditation — everything else is listed for what it is, which is the stack you would be inheriting.
What you would be operating.
Grouped by what it does. Nothing here is a preference we would impose — where an institution has standardised on something, we build on that instead, and say so before the contract rather than after it.
Cloud & infrastructure
Containerised delivery, so the same build runs identically in a government data centre and on a hyperscaler.
Data & platform
The default where nothing is mandated: open, portable, and no licence to lose at renewal.
Security & delivery
Source control, code review and CI. Repositories for public-sector work are held in the institution's own organisation, not ours.
- We disclose the full stack before award, including anything licensed, so the running cost is known at evaluation rather than discovered at renewal.
- We do not resell. Where a licence is needed you hold it, in your own name, and can move it.
- Nothing here is a lock-in. Every system we build is deployable on infrastructure you control, and the exit provisions in our contracts say so.
- We will tell you when a technology we like is the wrong answer for your estate. That has cost us work, and it is the point of saying it here.
Full disclosures — entity, contracting, data residency, security and handover — are on procurement, or write to ask@madsoftech.com.
Start here
Bring us the problem
nobody has solved.
A 30-minute technical briefing. We will tell you what we would build, roughly what it costs, and honestly whether we are the right people for it.