• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

The dominant factor is not technology — it remains unclear scope. Every open question in the specification turns into a contingency in the estimate. A supplier that has no visibility into the edge cases must assume the worst. Putting two weeks into a discovery phase frequently cuts the total far more than negotiating the rate.

Integrations remain the second big multiplier. A form that saves data is easy to estimate; the same feature connected to a legacy ERP is another matter entirely. The effort sits in the third party: poor documentation, slow approval cycles, fields that mean something different on each side. Ask the estimator to break integrations out as separate items, because that is where the numbers slip.

Non-functional requirements quietly rewrite the budget. An internal tool used by a handful of staff is a very different build from the same idea handling a hundred thousand users. Compliance work, uptime targets, performance under load, traceability and multi-language support add real engineering time. State them early nearshore or offshore software development else expect them priced as extras.

The mix of people behind the number matters a great deal. A rate card tells you very little on its own: one senior developer at twice the price frequently turns out to be cheaper per delivered feature than a pair of junior developers who require supervision and rework. Also ask what else appears on the invoice: delivery management, testing, release engineering and design are legitimate costs, but these should be itemised.

The build price is never the total cost. Budget for infrastructure, third-party licences, outsource react native development logging and alerting and a maintenance allowance each year. A reasonable rule of thumb says that any production system consumes a recurring percentage of the original budget every year in fixes, updates and small changes. Leaving it out of the budget remains the classic mistake.