How did your relationship with IT Svit evolve?
The implementation started in April 2018. But I later noticed that the team had been adding new features we didn’t need. I sat down with them again in May to define the features we needed for a working and scalable solution. At the end of June, I asked them to just build what we defined without adding anything new.
IT Svit completed the first prototyping milestone in about a month and a half on Jenkins. We tested it and moved to implementation on GCP based on IT Svit's suggested architecture. We then did the first test in August of the GCP implementation. Unfortunately, IT Svit’s deliverables did not match our expectations. The solution crashed when we attempted to process more than one file in a project. When we aired our frustration, the team stated that we had never communicated the target picture to them, which prevented their ability to scale the solution. The team then gave us two options—stop the project or pay a fee to remedy the problem.
That interaction led me to arrange a discussion between the technical lead and CEO. That exchange did not yield immediate results. As a workaround, our team bought a different server for our laboratory and migrated our workflow on to that. I then assigned our in-house team to complete the GCP project.
The in-house team could remedy coding mistakes and make the solution work on a few files, however, the architecture proposed was not suitable for our task. We discussed the solution with Google Cloud engineers who confirmed that it could never work. We are now rebuilding everything from scratch with a different vendor.
What problems arose and what did IT Svit do to address them?
The internal team reviewed IT Svit’s work and determined that a misunderstanding occurred around GCP. They identified several basic mistakes that hindered the infrastructure’s scalability.
IT Svit spent too much time on prototyping, but they completely lacked an understanding of GCP. Ultimately, even the prototype on Jenkins proved to be unhelpful.
Describe the impact this engagement has had on your business.
The Jenkins Pipeline implementation took 600 hours when the team’s initial estimate was 60 hours. Furthermore, transferring to GCP and prototyping was a disaster, likely as a result of from IT Svit’s unfamiliarity with GCP. Although this engagement hasn’t hindered our relationship with customers, it did keep us from performing faster. But our significant amount of internal activity made it difficult to pinpoint IT Svit’s overall impact.
How was project management handled?
Our project scope was clear and stable, but IT Svit didn’t create value for the cost. Their daily updates stopped abruptly. Similarly, the team had to redo documentation on three occasions. Our team interacted with account managers as needed. We also communicated via email and biweekly calls with the technical team.
Is there anything that the vendor did well or that you would consider a strength?
The team had strong sales, marketing, and communication skills. Although IT Svit needed extra time, they did a good job with the Jenkins Pipeline implementation. That component was basic system administration work, but they executed it well.
In what specific areas can they improve?
IT Svit needed to be more transparent about their GCP competency and abilities to handle complex projects.
What advice do you have for clients with similar needs to yours?
Give them clear instructions in writing and monitor their work closely.
The project was successful, and IT Svit was asked to work on another project for the same team. They continue to provide ongoing support and help the platform’s development. Their team completed everything they promised and proactively created solutions, which was cost-efficient.