This would work brilliantly, but it would depend on the person. You would want somebody hyper critical and original to really question your teams bad decisions

This would work brilliantly, but it would depend on the person. You would want somebody hyper critical and original to really question your teams bad decisions in order realign your trajectory and simultaneously provide mentorship. This means somebody with average agreeability or less, extremely high openness, and relatively high consciousness. This person needs to have the ability to really question your basic assumptions about software, experience as a solution provider, and excellent organizational skills like an architect, and superior communication skills the demonstrate both criticality and empathy (but absolutely not sympathy). In the world of corporate software this person is a purple unicorn. You will likely want to bring in somebody from a different walk of life (yet still have a software background) where this personality set is more common yet has an aptitude for software and organization, which can include places like community organizer, military, project manager, logistics engineering, and so forth. Also keep in mind that many developers are both entitled and have a super narrow perspective on how to proceed. Bringing in a part timer to shake things may result in emotional distress and immediate rejection from many developers, so this person needs a superior title. In the end it’s about saving the employer money and simultaneously increasing product quality first, and secondly increasing developer confidence and satisfaction. I would plan on two to four hours per week diving into the product and sprint planning, about two hours per week with one on ones, and another two hours per week on writing summaries for the team.