About KKLD*
They support their clients to find new business events. When they develop mobile apps they want their client's success. This is a great reward for them. They encourage us a large deal and encourage bring out the best from them. They like to see their clients coming back to them for more. They help their clients drive communication to get customer purchase and storytelling active.
Last updated May 13, 2026
Services
Industries Served
KKLD* Reviews
Write a ReviewTokenisation project that went from whitepaper to mainnet without a single major incident
Tobias Lindemann / Leiter Digitalisierung - Lindemann Industrie GmbHJun 01, 2026
Project summary: Grid modernisation funding required us to demonstrate demand-response capability. The machine learning models existed on paper; we needed an engineering partner to build and productionise them.
We gave this team an aggressive timeline, a technically complex scope, and a client-side project team that was stretched thin and not always available at the speed the engagement required. They absorbed all of that gracefully. Where they needed input they were precise about what they needed and when. Where they could proceed independently they did. The result was a delivery that landed on time despite the constraints on our side, which I regard as evidence of genuine professional maturity.
Commercially transparent throughout — no hidden assumptions, no bill shock at the end, change requests that were fair and clearly explained rather than used as a margin-recovery mechanism
The quality of documentation they produce means our team needed to set aside dedicated review time to do it justice — a minor scheduling point rather than a genuine criticism
Questions & Answers
Technically rigorous, commercially grounded, and a genuine pleasure to work with
Declan Hartley / Chief Digital Officer - Southern Cross TechnologyApr 03, 2026
Project summary: Digital service standards required all citizen-facing applications to meet accessibility and performance benchmarks that our inherited systems failed. Remediation was not viable — we needed a replacement.
The thing that retrospectively seems most significant is how little drama there was. Complex technology projects tend to accumulate incidents, escalations, and tense conversations. This one did not. Problems were surfaced before they became incidents. Scope changes were handled with process rather than conflict. Risks were managed rather than avoided. That level of maturity is rare in my experience and it made the delivery feel almost effortless from our side, which I know it was not from theirs.
Collaborative culture that made the team feel like a genuine extension of our organisation, strong asynchronous communication across time zones, zero-drama handling of the inevitable mid-project changes
We underestimated the input required from our subject matter experts during the requirements phase. The team flagged this early but our resource planning did not fully reflect it — our responsibility, not theirs
Questions & Answers
Cross-platform delivery that felt native on every device from day one
Zara Hussain / Head of Technology - Ravi Digital AgencyMar 16, 2026
Project summary: Serialisation requirements under new traceability legislation had a compliance deadline. Our supply chain system required targeted development to meet it — generalist knowledge was not sufficient.
We had worked with three agencies before this engagement. The comparison is not flattering to the others. What distinguished this team was a systematic approach to understanding the problem before proposing a solution — something that sounds obvious and is practiced far less often than it should be. The delivery phase ran to schedule, the codebase is clean enough that our internal engineers made positive comments during handover review, and we have not logged a critical incident in five months of live operation. We intend to use them for our next phase of work.
Clear and consistent communication adapted appropriately for both technical and non-technical stakeholders, shared tooling that gave our team real-time visibility, reliable sprint delivery throughout
Their insistence on a detailed functional specification before development began felt like friction at the time. In retrospect, it was the reason the development phase ran without the ambiguity that has derailed similar projects for us previously
Questions & Answers
Implementation delivered with the discipline, documentation, and change management it required
Erik Lindqvist / Chief Technology Officer - Nordic Cloud ABFeb 19, 2026
Project summary: The project had a board-facing delivery date tied to a strategic initiative. We needed a partner who would treat that date as their own, not ours.
What made the most difference in practice was the quality of the engineering judgment on this team. Not the ability to execute a specification — that is a baseline expectation. The ability to recognise when a specification was suboptimal, explain why, propose an alternative, and support the client in making a decision about it. That consultative dimension elevated the output beyond what the brief described and resulted in a product that is more fit for purpose than the one we had originally specified.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
Pipeline availability for kickoff required a few weeks of lead time — in hindsight that selection pressure means you are working with a team that is in demand for the right reasons
Questions & Answers
QA coverage that finally made Friday deployments feel like a professional activity
Flynn Buchanan / GM of Technology - Pacific Rim Commerce GroupFeb 04, 2026
Project summary: Our engineering capacity was committed to maintaining existing systems and could not absorb a net-new build of this complexity. An external partner with the right skills was the only viable option.
Six months after go-live our platform is processing three times the transaction volume we specified in the original brief. The architecture choices made during discovery accommodated that growth without remediation work. That is the difference between a team that designs for what you tell them and a team that designs for what you are likely to need. We are in conversation about a Phase 2 engagement and I expect to be using this partnership for several years.
Architectural decisions designed for longevity rather than just the current brief, thorough automated test coverage, post-launch stability that validated every technical choice made during discovery
We underestimated the input required from our subject matter experts during the requirements phase. The team flagged this early but our resource planning did not fully reflect it — our responsibility, not theirs