Skip to main content

Site reliability engineering

Make production reliability visible and manageable

We help teams define service ownership, tune alerts, build practical runbooks, improve incident response, and introduce SLO practice where it can be used responsibly.

Conservative reliability work backed by evidence, not generic uptime promises.

Request reliability assessmentCompare service plans

Operational evidence first

Service maps, alert inventories, incident paths, dashboards, runbooks, and reliability backlogs your team can inspect.

SLOs where they help

SLIs and SLOs tied to user-visible service health, ownership, measurement windows, and review cadence.

Incident response that scales

Severity definitions, escalation paths, stakeholder updates, post-incident review, and tracked corrective work.

Service playbook

From problem to operating evidence

Main content is structured like a case study: context first, scoped work next, then the operating changes and evidence a team can use after handoff.

Service briefWho it is forWhat is includedPackagesPlan alignment

SRE as a Service is for production teams that are tired of unreliable signals, unclear ownership, and incident response that depends on whoever happens to be online. We improve the operating system around production: what is monitored, who responds, how incidents are handled, and which reliability investments matter first.

Case-study lens

Scoped

Problem, responsibility, and handoff boundaries before implementation.

Evidence

Dashboards, runbooks, reviews, and operating records over borrowed logos.

Outcomes

Conservative summaries focused on observable operational improvement.

EvidenceSection 01

Who it is for

Runbooks, dashboards, reviews, and handoff material make the work auditable.

Team situationWhy this service fits
Alerts are noisy or ignoredWe inventory alerts, remove low-signal pages, and link alerts to action
Incidents feel improvisedWe define severity, escalation, communication, and review practices
Reliability risk is blocking growthWe assess failure modes, capacity, dependencies, and launch readiness
Dashboards exist but do not guide decisionsWe connect observability to service ownership and user-facing symptoms
Leadership needs reliability evidenceWe create reports, backlogs, and operating metrics that support decisions
ScopeSection 02

What is included

The work is broken into visible capabilities, acceptance points, and handoff artifacts.

Assessment step

Reliability assessment

  • critical service and dependency mapping
  • review of incidents, alerts, dashboards, deploy process, and known risks
  • failure-mode and ownership gap analysis
  • prioritized reliability backlog with validation steps
  • executive-readable summary for technical and non-technical stakeholders

Implementation focus

Observability and alert quality

  • metrics, logs, traces, dashboards, and alert rule review
  • signal-to-noise reduction and routing improvements
  • service dashboard design around user-facing health
  • alert annotations with owners, dashboards, logs, and runbooks
  • review cadence for alert quality and operational drift

Operating step

Incident operating model

  • severity matrix and escalation paths
  • communication templates for internal and external updates
  • responder roles and decision ownership
  • post-incident review format focused on learning and risk reduction
  • follow-up tracking so corrective work is not lost after recovery

Signal quality

SLO practice

  • candidate SLIs grounded in user experience
  • SLO drafts with measurement windows and exclusions where appropriate
  • error budget review process
  • guidance on when SLOs are not mature enough to use yet
OutcomeSection 03

Packages

Expected changes are framed as practical operating improvements, not unsupported guarantees.

PackageBest forTypical deliverables
Reliability AssessmentTeams needing a clear view before investmentService map, alert review, risk backlog, executive summary
Observability ImplementationTeams with poor signals or dashboard sprawlDashboards, alert tuning, runbooks, review process
Incident ReadinessTeams preparing for launches or enterprise customersSeverity model, escalation, comms templates, tabletop exercise
Managed ReliabilityTeams needing ongoing SRE supportRecurring reviews, backlog coaching, incident review facilitation, optional escalation support
EvidenceSection 04

Plan alignment

Runbooks, dashboards, reviews, and handoff material make the work auditable.

PlanFitIncluded emphasis
XSEarly production teamsAssessment, basic alert review, runbook priorities
SGrowing teams with multiple servicesObservability implementation, incident model, reliability backlog
MHigher-risk production environments24/7 escalation options, senior reviews, SLO practice, resilience validation
CustomRegulated or high-availability systemsScoped SLA, formal evidence, multi-team operating model
OutcomeSection 05

Outcomes you can measure

The result is described as an operating change the team can observe, review, and sustain.

  • fewer unactionable pages
  • alerts routed to the right owners with useful context
  • incident roles and stakeholder updates defined before the next incident
  • dashboards that explain service health instead of only infrastructure symptoms
  • reliability backlog ranked by risk, effort, and validation method
  • post-incident follow-up tracked to completion
  • SLO candidates reviewed by engineers and stakeholders together
OutcomeSection 06

Proof we leave behind

Expected changes are framed as practical operating improvements, not unsupported guarantees.

EvidenceWhat it proves
Service ownership mapWhich systems matter and who responds
Alert inventoryWhich alerts exist, why they fire, and what action they require
RunbooksWhat responders should do first under pressure
Incident templatesHow the team communicates and reviews incidents
Reliability backlogWhich fixes reduce the most risk first
SLO draftHow reliability can be measured without vanity metrics
ScopeSection 07

Delivery model

The work is broken into visible capabilities, acceptance points, and handoff artifacts.

Assessment step

1. Reliability discovery

We collect service context, dashboards, alert rules, incident history, deployment process, infrastructure topology, and known risks. The output separates urgent operating gaps from longer-term reliability investments.

Operating step

2. Operating model design

We define service ownership, severity levels, escalation, communications, post-incident review, and the acceptance criteria for alert changes before changing tooling.

Operating step

3. Observability and runbook implementation

We tune dashboards, alert rules, logging views, tracing entry points, runbooks, and handoff material using your existing stack where possible.

Operating step

4. Validation and handoff

We validate the model with a tabletop exercise, controlled test, or review of a real incident. Handoff includes what changed, how to maintain it, and what remains in the reliability backlog.

Operating modelSection 08

Tooling and integrations

Responsibilities, response paths, and technical changes are made explicit before work starts.

We work with your current observability stack first. Replacement is recommended only when it improves reliability, maintainability, or operating cost.

  • Prometheus — Metrics, alert rules, service-level indicators, and reliability reviews
  • Grafana — Dashboards that connect service health, incidents, and operational decisions

Common integrations include Grafana, Prometheus, Loki, ELK/OpenSearch, Datadog, New Relic, CloudWatch, Jaeger, OpenTelemetry, PagerDuty, Opsgenie, Slack, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Kubernetes, Terraform, and managed cloud services.

OutcomeSection 09

What we do not claim

Expected changes are framed as practical operating improvements, not unsupported guarantees.

We do not promise universal uptime numbers without reviewing architecture, dependencies, deployment process, traffic, third-party services, operational control, and measurement windows. If a formal SLA is needed, we scope it separately around explicit systems and responsibilities.

Next stepSection 11

Getting started

Decision points and common questions are made explicit so follow-up work is scoped cleanly.

Start with a reliability assessment. We will review monitoring, incident flow, production risks, and service ownership, then return a scoped plan for what to fix first. Request reliability assessment →

Next stepSection 12

Frequently asked questions

Decision points and common questions are made explicit so follow-up work is scoped cleanly.

What is the difference between SRE and traditional operations? SRE applies engineering discipline to reliability work. In practice, that means measurable service health, clear ownership, usable runbooks, incident review, and automation that reduces repeated toil.

Can you work with our existing monitoring tools? Yes. We start with the tools you already use and improve signal quality before recommending replacements.

Do you provide 24/7 incident response? We can provide on-call or escalation support when it is explicitly scoped to agreed services, severity definitions, access, and responsibilities.

Can you guarantee 99.9% uptime? Not without a formal review and scoped SLA. We avoid generic uptime guarantees because measured availability depends on architecture, dependencies, deployment practice, and operational control.

Ready to get started?

Book a quote review or talk to an engineer.

Get pricing

Pricing

Flexible scopes available. if you need custom terms or bundled service pricing.

Hourly rate
€130/hr

Minimum engagement: 40 hours (5.200 €/mo retainer)

24/7 reliability engineering. On-call, incident response, and proactive hardening.

Talk to a senior engineer

Need a clearer path for SRE as a Service?

We'll help you understand fit, scope, pricing, and the fastest practical next step for your team.

No obligation • Senior engineer review • Recommendations grounded in your current stack