Onwards

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.


A number produced without questions is a red flag rather than good service. A competent team returns questions first:  [[https://webparadox.com/industries/igaming/|igaming platform development]] about users and volumes. A provider that quotes without asking anything is probably working from a template, and a guess resurfaces as a change order — at your expense.



Look out for a mismatch between the team in the pitch and  [[https://webparadox.com/compare/nearshore-vs-offshore/|nearshore software development]] the developers actually assigned. Insist on specific people rather than roles in the contract, with wording about substitutions. A vendor that will only describe a pool of resources and refuses to name individuals is preserving its own flexibility at your cost.



Insist on the source repository from day one. A provider that shows code only at milestones is asking you to trust a black box. Visible commits tell you how many people are really working far better than a weekly report. This extends to the automated test suite: if nothing runs automatically, assurances about quality are just talk.



Vague phrasing around IP is never a formality. The agreement must state plainly that all outputs produced under it belong to your [[https://webparadox.com/services/ai-automation/|business process automation company]] upon settlement of the relevant invoice. Also check which country's law applies and how payments are structured: a large upfront payment with no deliverable attached takes away your only leverage.



Last, look at communication. Establish what overlap the teams will share with your timezone, who answers questions and how quickly. Four hours of overlap is usually enough; no overlap turns every clarification into a lost day. Sloppy written English in the early emails does not improve later.