intahnet://solutions

Services

Platform Engineering

Platform engineering builds the internal platform that other engineers build on top of. It stops teams from solving the same infrastructure problems independently and prevents every new service from re-deriving deployment, secrets, and networking.

I build GitOps-driven Kubernetes platforms, self-service patterns via Helm and FluxCD, and reusable Infrastructure-as-Code instead of bespoke setups per team.

Problems this usually starts from

These issues usually prompt a conversation:

  • Every team re-solves the same deployment, secrets, and networking problems independently.
  • Provisioning a new service means copying another setup and hoping it is current.
  • Without a self-service path, every change routes through one overloaded team.
  • Kubernetes is running, but nobody agrees on what “the platform” actually includes.
  • Infrastructure-as-Code exists, but it is bespoke per project rather than reusable.
  • Standards exist on paper but are not enforced in practice.
  • Onboarding a new engineer requires walking them through undocumented tribal knowledge.

What an engagement looks like

I start by understanding what teams build against today: which parts of the platform are genuinely shared, and which are accidentally duplicated. From there, I build GitOps-driven Kubernetes platforms, self-service patterns via Helm and FluxCD, and Infrastructure-as-Code that teams reuse rather than copy-paste.

Scope is either a fixed piece of work (standardising one part of the platform, a specific migration) or an ongoing placement. Deliverables are tools teams can build on: documented, reusable modules and patterns, not a one-off cluster only I understand.

Typical work includes Helm charts and FluxCD Kustomizations that turn “add a new service” into a pull request instead of a ticket, RBAC and namespace conventions that scale as the platform grows, and Terraform modules written for reuse rather than divergence.

I can build one standardised piece or an entire platform over time. The engagement and pricing page details how I agree on and price work.

Questions

Remote or on-site?

Either — depends on the engagement. Comfortable with a regular on-site day where required.

Long contracts only, or shorter work too?

Both. That includes urgent, one-off issues — a platform component that’s broken and blocking every team, a cluster in a bad state — not just fixed-scope projects or longer placements. No running contract required to get started on something like that.

What if there's already a platform team in place?

Common, and usually the point — working alongside an existing team to build out or standardise what’s already started, not replacing it.

Does this mean migrating everything to Kubernetes?

No — the platform serves whatever’s actually running. Some workloads fit Kubernetes well; others don’t, and forcing them in usually creates more problems than it solves.

Do you work with a specific cloud provider?

Most commonly AWS, but the platform patterns — Kubernetes, Helm, FluxCD, Terraform — aren’t tied to one provider and carry over to whatever’s actually in use.

Can I get a fractional platform engineer rather than hiring one?

Yes. It’s the same work, bought a piece at a time or as a block of days each month instead of a full-time hire. Reusable modules and self-service patterns suit that shape well, because they keep working between days. How it’s scoped and priced.

What size team is this usually a fit for?

No fixed minimum — it comes up as often for a handful of engineers deciding on conventions early as it does for a larger org whose platform has grown past what one team can maintain alone.

Get in touch

Also