Could you share any evidence that would demonstrate the productivity, quality of work, or the impact of the engagement?
We keep going back to ScienceSoft for more work, so we've been very happy with the quality of their code and general understanding of our CRM. I've worked with other overseas companies, which came with some challenges. I've not experienced this with ScienceSoft.
How did ScienceSoft perform from a project management standpoint?
ScienceSoft has always delivered on-budget or under, and their turnaround time has been excellent. Whenever we needed to get some work done on a tight schedule, ScienceSoft had good responsiveness. One of the reasons for going back to ScienceSoft was that, whenever they made a time estimate, they stuck to it. There was only one exception to this, when ScienceSoft went over-schedule by a couple of hours, but I could understand their circumstances. The requirements changed slightly, and ScienceSoft still delivered within reasonable time.
We don't use any specialized project management tools. We mostly communicate with ScienceSoft through email and Excel. I start a new spreadsheet of ongoing issues to be fixed, or new functionalities and features. I make descriptions in as much detail as possible, sometimes providing additional design documents for more complicated tasks. We have a back-and-forth process with ScienceSoft, through which they will provide an initial time and budget estimate. Once in a while, we'll also use GoToMeeting, whenever we need to create an overly-complicated functionality which I need to ensure that ScienceSoft will understand.
What did you find most impressive about ScienceSoft?
Typically, ScienceSoft has been able to easily understand what's needed. I also appreciate the fact that I can bounce ideas off of ScienceSoft's team, and figure out the best way of handling a task. I have my own ideas, but it's good to have a back-and-forth process nonetheless. As an example, a customer wanted to introduce product hierarchies. We'd been discussing the pros and cons between creating custom entities and fields, or using out-of-the-box functionalities. ScienceSoft gave me insight into their experience with each approach. I appreciated the fact that ScienceSoft won't simply do what is asked of them, but rather bring in their own feedback and ideas of what is best for a particular functionality. ScienceSoft never came back to me with a straight no, but rather offered alternatives for any request. I've tried to do this with my own customers.
I find ScienceSoft to be very responsive, knowledgeable, and overall pleasant to work with. It's been a good partnership thus far, so good that we haven't had to hire any internal resources. We have consultants, but no developers.
Are there any areas ScienceSoft could improve?
Our only limitation is that, because I'm located in the West Coast, our hours don't match up very well at times. ScienceSoft has performed well overall, though.
What tips or recommendations could you share that might increase the likelihood of success with ScienceSoft?
ScienceSoft is a proven commodity to us, but in general, unless a client checks a developer's references, or knows where they're coming from, they won't know what kind of code that company will deliver. ScienceSoft has always delivered for me, so I would recommend them, but there are always unknown factors.