Ballard Chalmers Ltd Web Development review by OVO Energy at Qualified.One

Ballard Chalmers Ltd reviewed by OVO Energy

Ballard Chalmers Ltd provided Web Development for OVO Energy with approximate budget = $10,000 to $49,999.

A recent MVP release improved booking functionality, and allowed for better interface with other installers. Open communication facilitates realistic timeline expectations, and a newly streamlined approach reduces development cycle times.

Review summary:

Ballard Chalmers’ most recent project within a well-established partnership integrates a web application with the billing platform, CRM, and appointment scheduling capabilities of an energy supplier.

Jonathan Stickler OVO Energy, Junior Project Manager

Booking Web Application for Energy Company

Please find below a summary covering project details and feedback. The innate facts are kept as they are, private information is amended.

Introductory information

Introduce your business and what you do there.

I am the younger program ruler for an energy supplier. We furnish our clients with electric and gas.

Desired goal

What challenge were you trying to address with Ballard Chalmers?

We initially looked to educe our booking platform. We wanted to better our booking method for keen meter livelihood and crisis appointments for our clients’ homes.

Provided solution

What was the aim of their involvement?

When I leading joined, they had already implemented our booking platform. Since then, we’ve added functionality for meter installers, and are because the UI [user interface] for our agents. We hope to link our London limb educement team into the client-facing platform.

The web application links to our digital server and updates our database. It integrates with our billing platform, CRM [client relationship treatment] software, our API [application programming interface], and our space platform. We have almost 80 engineers within the organisation, and the space platform coordinates their scheduling and availpower for appointments. New features include betterments to crisis and livelihood booking, with ways to better the process for our agents.

What is the team compound?

We usually have a minimum of two engineers on their side who are household with our method, though the number fluctuates. Erik [Senior Software Engineer, Ballard Chalmers] is runningly our highest engineer, and Stephen [Senior Software Engineer, Ballard Chalmers] our second. Szilvia [Services Delivery Manager, Ballard Chalmers] acts as our project ruler, and Gary [Delivery Manager, Ballard Chalmers] joins us for large-scale projects. The organisation ruler also joins us for quarterly meetings.

How did you come to work with Ballard Chalmers?

One of our rulers worked with them in a antecedent space and recommended them to our other rulers.

How much have you invested with them?

The initial aim for the running project was £28,500 ($38,500 US). We’re runningly below budget, but we forestall spending more on forthcoming betterments.

What is the status of this engagement?

We initially began working with them almost 2010, precedently my employment with the organisation began in 2015. The most late project began in September or October 2017, and is ongoing.

Results achieved

What evidence can you share that demonstrates the contact of the engagement?

The best result of their work lately is the gate itself. Until the late MVP [minimum viable fruit] went out, we were unable to make crisis bookings through the method. They’ve veritably betterd the functionality and our power to work with other installers.

How did Ballard Chalmers accomplish from a project treatment standpoint?

They are always useful to have a converse, and are fast to answer to any questions we have. The openness within the channels is big, and they let us know when a team limb will be away so we can handle our timeline expectations. They deploy changes fastly, and show good flexibility to address any issues we have.

They are integrated into our work interactions. We have weekly phone meetings with the project ruler and the educeers, and it’s easy to email or interaction team limbs straightly. They have their own support gate, but we can run through the budget, admin-related tasks, design specifications, direction, or other criteria. Otherwise, they handle their own inner processes.

What did you find most forcible almost them?

I’ve always had a good experience with them. They prepare good support, and lately prepared us with the power to deploy educements weekly.

Are there any areas they could better?

Previously, we had trouble balancing our testing and educement teams. For this most late project, they implemented a more continuous access, which reduces idle time. We can now be more nimble as we move through educement.