If anything, you should contract with a software company that builds custom software solutions for niche businesses. But be very careful when identifying the company to go with, as a lot of them are essentially scams.
Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
181–190 of 607 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#182Also, in house software needs to retain knowledge, otherwise the knowledge disappears when the senior resigns.
I’ve 20+ years experience with business like yours. Contact me.
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#183My biggest suggestion is to look into ways that the transition can be done in stages, rather than trying to replace everything in one big swoop. This is likely doable, especially since you are already having to rely on outside tools. Then to start building, hire a small team (employees or freelancers) and have them create a single piece of functionality that can be swapped out from the current workflow. This type of…
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#184IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#185> "This feels like a quagmire in which development can quickly stall." It depends. In the end EDIFACT is just a protocol. If you go the Java route Smooks, for example, has pretty decent support to read/write EDIFACT messages. If you do not want to do the heavy lifting yourself, both AWS and Azure provide SaaS services to do the heavy lifting for you (AWS: B2B Data Interchange, Azure: Azure Logic Apps) > Besides, can…
> It depends. In the end EDIFACT is just a protocol. If you go the Java route Smooks, for example, has pretty decent support to read/write EDIFACT messages. You can also do shim servers to translate between protocols - a long time ago, I had to interface with a Rails app (by another team, so I couldn't modify it) with an Emerson (the industrial giant) SOAP API, and what turned out to be effective was a Sinatra shim s…
The great thing about the modular monolith is that it gives you a fantastic foundation to grow: You can still invest in multiple teams each handling a certain part of your problem domain (due to the modularity); and because it is modular you could easily break it apart, and evolve it, into a microservices architecture if and when there comes a time you need to do so (due to extensive problems getting code shipped, or difficulties concerning NFRs defined for the architecture, for example scaling issues in production).
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#186Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#187WWIO achieves high productivity by moving all the logic into front-end JS code, which accesses and persists data to SQLite DBs on the backend with a simple, standard API (for VIP clients like you, I would augment this with some backend Python scripts). This approach makes it super-easy to build the CRUD features, while allowing a backdoor when you need special functionality. For a sports camp nonprofit, we did a backend integration with Google's OR Tool library, to solve their scheduling problem with a single click:
https://webwidgets.io/blog/sportscamp.html
I would love to do a call to discuss your needs. If WWIO seems like a good match, I'd be happy to build an MVP at no charge and create a strategy to move forward with minimal risk. If not, I'd be happy to share my thoughts as a seasoned engineer. Contact info in profile.
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#188IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…
Identify a part of this system that can work somewhat in isolation and is non-critical if at all possible. Then document the requirements for this part thoroughly. This allows you to:
- Have something smaller for your new team to cut their teeth on.
- Ensure you have collected all the diffuse domain knowledge for this part in one place in the form of structured requirements.
- Forces you to think in terms of what you need and what is acceptable delivery,
If need be you can bring in a Senior/Staff level engineer to help you through this discovery and definition phase.
In my experience the most common difference between success and failure for a project often comes down to clear requirements and expectations. Your employees are the domain experts. You need to collect that expertise and document it in a way that this team can reasonably consume. This is difficult and time consuming so start now.
They will still have questions and get things wrong but this gives you a roadmap. They are going to be learning your industry while you are learning how to build software.
Best of luck
EDIT: formatting
Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#189Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?
#190And you're in a pretty shitty position, to be honest. Because you don't even have the skills required to hire the right people. Much less handle the project yourself and delegate tasks.
My advice would be to find someone you trust with plenty of software experience, explain the situation and LISTEN to what they have to say, especially when it's not what you want to hear.
Or you're likely going to waste a lot of time and effort making the situation even worse, happens every day.