Team Builder
Requirements in. Client-ready teams out.
Tell Lumiere what the project is, or hand it the requirement directly. Either way, Team Builder returns a fully staffed proposed team, generated, scored, and optimized for whichever trade-off your firm chooses between cost and skill coverage. You decide which team to submit.
The first firm to a credible team usually wins.
A new requirement lands. A practice leader spends two days emailing colleagues to find out who's free, who has the right skills, who's interested. By the time the proposal goes back, two competitors have already submitted. Speed and match quality are the same race, and most firms are losing both.
Same requirement. Same talent pool. Different speed to credible team.
From requirement to proposed team.
Step 1
Drop in the requirement. A pasted JD, a client RFP, an email thread, a structured form. Team Builder parses the roles, skills, dates, locations, rates, and any constraints.
Step 2
Lumiere reads your consultants. Skills, certifications, prior engagements, current availability, rate fit, location, language coverage, security clearances. The match isn't a keyword search, it's a multi-factor read of who would actually do this work well. Sort, filter and compare resources across a wide spectrum of variables.
Step 3
Get a ranked team. A primary proposed team plus alternates per role. Each name has a match score, the reasons behind it, current availability, and the rate you'd quote. Practice leaders override; the system learns from the override.
Drill into each candidate with a Match Report - skill scores and named gaps. For unfilled seats, Lumiere drafts a JD to find the candidate in the market.
Send to proposal
Handles the simple ones. Earns its keep on the complex ones.
A 31-role transformation program with a multi-region team, two specialist subcontractor seats, three rate tiers, and a security clearance requirement on five of the seats - Team Builder reads it as one requirement and returns a coherent team. Not 31 single-role searches stitched together. One read, one team, one shortlist.
Faster than the competitor. Better-matched than the email thread.
On average, customers cut the time from requirement-received to client-ready shortlist by 85%. The match quality, measured by client acceptance and engagement health twelve months in, runs around 67% above the email-thread baseline. Faster proposals, better-suited consultants, fewer engagements that go sideways at month four.
Cost vs coverage. Your call.
Lumiere doesn't pick the team for you. It proposes optimizations and lets you pick which trade-off your firm wants to make on this project. You build the team. Lumiere shows you the choices.
Best cost.
The lowest-cost team that covers most of the skills the project requires. Some specific skills are partially covered, Lumiere names them explicitly. The right choice when budget is the binding constraint.
Full coverage, any cost.
The team that, as a group, covers every skill the requirement names. Cost lands wherever it lands. The right choice when the engagement can't tolerate a skill gap.
Anywhere in between.
Slide a single control between cost and coverage and watch the proposed team rearrange. Names change, costs move, coverage moves. You see every trade-off before you decide.
When no internal name fits.
If a role on the project has no qualified consultant on your bench, or if the best match is a 60% match, Lumiere flags the gap, drafts a post-ready JD against your firm's templates, and routes the requirement to your hiring pipeline. The proposal still goes out on time, with the gap addressed proactively. Team Builder hands the JD draft to AI Content; the rest of the proposal continues on track.
Project Director
Cloud Architect
Data Engineer Lead
External
JD Drafting
Sr Data Engineer
Sr Data Engineer
External
JD Drafting
Complance
Jr Analyst
