After Prototype Approval: Choosing the Right Delivery Model for Production

Prototype Approval Signals Strategic Alignment

Approving a clickable prototype is an informed decision, not a leap of faith.

By the time approval happens, leadership has already:

• Validated the business problem and proposed solution
• Aligned stakeholders around scope, experience, and direction
• Reduced uncertainty before committing meaningful capital
• Established a clear path forward

Prototypes exist to eliminate uncertainty early—when change is least expensive and clarity matters most. Approval marks the transition from exploration to accountability.

Explore a real world example of how a clickable prototype supports executive decision-making.

What Happens After Prototype Approval

Prototype approval confirms direction. What comes next is a leadership decision about how production delivery, ownership, and accountability will be structured.

This decision is less about technology and more about how responsibility is shared, funded, and governed once the system is live.

Choosing the Right Delivery Model for Production

After approval, leaders are not deciding
whether to move forward—they are deciding how. In practice, organizations choose between two delivery models for building the system.

These delivery models describe how responsibility and accountability are structured after approval. Commercial terms and contract vehicles are tailored within each model based on organizational needs.

Software-Development-as-a-Service: Managed Delivery with Ongoing Accountability

Best when internal engineering or operational capacity is limited

Software-Development-as-a-Service is designed for organizations that want to invest in custom software without taking on the ongoing burden of supporting, maintaining, and evolving it internally.

Rather than contracting for a discrete build and discovering later that long-term support exceeds internal capacity, this model bundles production delivery with ongoing enhancements, maintenance, and technical support under a single, accountable engagement.

• Funding: Distributed investment

• Ownership: Client-owned

• Operations: Managed by Red Hawk

• Primary Benefit: Reduced financial and operational risk

In this model:

• Delivery does not end at deployment

• Enhancements and maintenance are planned alongside the initial build

• Accountability for system health and evolution remains continuous

This approach is commonly chosen by organizations that:

• Do not have dedicated engineering or DevOps teams

• Want to focus internal resources on business outcomes rather than system upkeep

• Prefer predictable delivery and support without assembling or managing multiple vendors

Software-Development-as-a-Service allows leadership to invest in value creation while avoiding the operational risk of owning a custom system they are not equipped to support long-term.

Executive mindset:
“We want this built, supported, and evolved without having to stand up an internal software delivery organization.”

Time and Materials: Flexible Conversion to Production

Best when internal ownership is the priority

Time and Materials is the most flexible way to convert an approved prototype into production-ready software. Rather than locking teams into a single rigid structure, this model allows delivery to be tailored based on how much certainty and control leadership wants at different stages of the build.

• Funding: Capitalized build
• Ownership: Client-owned at deployment
• Operations: Internal teams
• Primary Benefit: Maximum control with adjustable guardrails
• Tradeoff: Requires internal operational maturity

Within this model, delivery can be structured to:

• Define clear scope and budget boundaries when requirements are well understood
• Establish spending limits while preserving flexibility as priorities evolve
• Scale engagement up or down as delivery needs change

In both cases, Red Hawk remains accountable for transparency, progress, and delivery discipline, while leadership retains control over how and when investment is applied.

Executive mindset:
“We want control — without losing visibility or predictability.”

Time and Materials is not a single contract structure, but a delivery approach that can be tailored to balance flexibility, predictability, and risk.

Production Confidence Is a Leadership Outcome

Production confidence is not the result of a single decision. Approving the prototype authorizes investment, but confidence is earned through the choices leaders make afterward—how delivery is funded, how responsibility is assigned, and how risk is governed once software is live.

Organizations that succeed long term treat production as a lifecycle, not a milestone. They define accountability early, validate readiness before exposure, and maintain discipline as systems evolve. The outcome isn’t just software that works—it’s an investment that holds its value over time.

Red Hawk SCA: Maintaining Production Confidence After Deployment

Choosing the right delivery model determines how software gets to production. Maintaining confidence once it’s live requires a different kind of discipline.

Once real users, real data, and real change enter the system, risk becomes continuous. Dependencies evolve, vulnerabilities in aging tech stacks are discovered, and issues must be corrected to preserve security and stability over time. This is where ongoing composition analysis and remediation become essential.

Red Hawk SCA – Software Composition Analysis & Remediation Services

Red Hawk SCA is a post-production subscription designed to help organizations maintain a strong security posture as their software evolves.

It is not part of the build and is not required to reach production. It exists because production systems change continuously—and those changes introduce risk that must be corrected over time.

In a live environment:

• Dependencies evolve
• New vulnerabilities are discovered
• Technical debt accumulates
• Remediation competes with feature delivery

Red Hawk SCA addresses these realities directly by combining continuous analysis with AI-driven code remediation.

Through this service:

• Technical Documentation is auto-generated, serving as a single, authoritative, living reference for the system's product overview, architecture, implementation, and operational guidance.
• A living Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) is continuously generated and maintained
• Codebases are scanned regularly for newly discovered vulnerabilities (CVEs)
• Risks are surfaced with real-time visibility across repositories
• Source-code remediation is executed through AI-driven agentic workflows
• Updated code is staged and flagged for engineering review and QA prior to deployment

This approach ensures vulnerabilities are not only identified, but corrected as part of normal operations—reducing manual effort while improving consistency and response time.

To support leadership oversight, Red Hawk SCA also provides:

• Business-readable summaries of technical findings
• Trend analysis showing how exposure changes over time
• Active alerts for failed scans, expiring credentials, or unmonitored assets

Ownership of the application remains fully with the client. Red Hawk SCA augments internal teams by ensuring security correction is visible, prioritized, and sustained—without relying on heroics or deferred cleanup.

Executive mindset:
“Production confidence isn’t something you achieve once. It’s something you maintain.”

Whether you’re validating direction, preparing to convert an approved prototype, or deciding how to govern a system in production, Red Hawk helps leadership teams choose the right path with clarity and confidence.

👉 Schedule a Conversation