• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

A number produced without questions is a bad sign. A competent team returns clarifying questions before any number: about users and volumes. A provider that commits to a figure before understanding the scope is working from a template, and a guess becomes a change request later — at your expense.

Watch for any distance between the people you meet and the people who will code. Request the names and CVs of the actual team in the contract, with a clause about substitutions. A team that only offers roles and custom react native development never names specific engineers is reserving the right to assign anyone it likes.

Ask for commit-level visibility from the start. A provider that delivers a build only at the end of each phase expects you to take delivery ruby on rails vs laravel faith. Regular commits and pull requests reveal how many people are really working far better than a weekly report. The same holds for the CI pipeline: if it does not exist, quality claims remain unverifiable.

Ambiguous contract language around code ownership is not a formality. The contract needs to state plainly that the code, designs and documentation transfer to the client upon settlement of the relevant invoice. Look too at the governing law and the payment schedule: a large upfront payment with no milestone tied to it eliminates any leverage you would otherwise keep.

Lastly, pay attention to the working rhythm. Establish how many hours the teams will share with your working day, who answers day-to-day questions and how quickly. Four hours of overlap is normally sufficient; no overlap stretches each small question into a twenty-four hour round trip. Unclear written communication in the proposal rarely improves under delivery pressure.