Onwards

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


Open with the reason this [[https://webparadox.com/services/edtech/|education software development company]] should exist, not a feature list. Who will use it day to day, how many times a day, and what does the process look like without it? An estimator who understands the goal will suggest an alternative that costs less; someone handed only a feature list will price the list as written.



Define what is included as concrete flows: what the user does and what the system does in response. Every bit as useful, list what is out of scope. An explicit list of exclusions saves more friction later than almost anything else in the document. Indicate as well which items are decided and which are still under discussion — the difference changes the price, and pretending everything is fixed helps no one.



List the constraints. These include the platforms and services involved, the data you already hold and its condition, regulatory obligations, user volumes, target platforms and any technology you are committed to. If there is a hard date, explain what drives it: a good team can often rearrange the plan to hit it, but not if the date is a secret.



Say what the word done means for each item. Clear acceptance criteria do not need any formal notation: a short list setting out what a user should be able to do is enough. This one section compresses the sign-off process [[https://webparadox.com/industries/|software development by industry]] a surprising margin and eliminates the usual argument at handover.



One last thing, say what you expect back. Require an itemised estimate,  [[https://webparadox.com/hire/golang-developers/|hire redis developers]] a written list of assumptions, whatever the team considers risky and  [[https://webparadox.com/services/mobile/|custom mobile app development services]] an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Take a broad range as useful information rather than evasion: it normally identifies exactly which requirement is unclear. At that point tighten that section and ask again — the revised figure will be much more reliable.