Could you share any statistics or metrics from this engagement?
The quality itself is somewhat hard to pinpoint, since we're embedding Itera's resources into our own team. We measure general satisfaction from our perspective, and in that regard, we're very satisfied. The feed-back from our internal developers and project managers is generally positive. They're very competent.
How did Itera perform from a project management standpoint?
Our general level of satisfaction is high in terms of their ability to get the right resources in place and absorb the business and domain knowledge that we provide. Some of the things that we build are country-specific, centering on pensions in Norway for example, which are unlike any others. Also, the general level of service has undergone a scaling-up for the past two or three years. They've been very easy to work with whenever we've decided to expand the work to new areas and bring in new people. It has been a lightweight and smooth process.
What distinguishes Itera from other providers?
The flexibility of the setup as a whole is a factor. We don't spend a lot of time on contracts and formal arrangements. Itera is very agile and lightweight in terms of management. Also, their general ability to procure individually-skilled resources has been good. Now that we're up to a thirty people team, they're still concerned with each person's performance and fit for the job. When we bring these resources close to our own, any weaknesses in a particular individual have a substantial effect inside the organization.
Is there anything Itera could have improved or done differently?
The general level of their communication skills could be improved. It varies from person to person. They could also be more proactive, and take the initiative on their end for technical improvements. I know that they have the skills and competence, but they seem reluctant to come up with suggestions for improvement. We need to drag these out of them.