Deep-tech R&D leaders don't come from a job post.
ER&D centres own the hard end of engineering: systems, embedded, silicon, controls, and platform. The people who can lead it have spent fifteen years going deep in one domain and are settled where they are. Reaching them is a mapping problem, and pricing them takes a benchmark the generic surveys don't have.
The expertise is narrow, the pool is settled, and depth is hard to verify.
An ER&D leadership role asks for genuine depth in a specific domain, embedded systems, power electronics, autonomous controls, that takes a career to build. The people who have it are few, well-placed, and not reading job posts. A wide search returns generalists who interview well and unravel in the technical deep-dive.
Comp is hard to pin too. Deep-tech leadership doesn't map to a software band, and surveys lump it in anyway. Set the number on the wrong reference and the rare specialist you need never moves.
Depth, reach, and a band that fits.
We map the narrow specialist pool, verify real domain depth, and benchmark deep-tech leadership on its own terms.
The numbers that move.
Aggregates across ER&D mandates we ran in 2024 to 2025. Not promises, the pattern on deep specialist roles.
Questions we get asked.
If you don't see what you're looking for, the form below is the fastest route. Most enquiries get a response within one working day.
Which ER&D roles do you place?
How do you verify genuine domain depth?
The specialists we want are settled elsewhere. Can you reach them?
How do you benchmark deep-tech comp?
Tell us the R&D role you need to fill.
Give us the domain and the city. We'll come back with a read on the specialist pool and the comp, even if we don't end up running the search.