Altkom Software & Consulting Software Development review by AXA Partners at Qualified.One

Altkom Software & Consulting reviewed by AXA Partners

Altkom Software & Consulting provided Software Development for AXA Partners with approximate budget = $1,000,000 - $9,999,999.

The app had some performance and accessibility issues immediately after its launch, which were quickly improved. The team included some excellent resources, and despite a relatively high level of turnover, they communicated well and were often dependable.

Review summary:

Altkom provided app development, working first on the backend and then two frontends for two sets of users. They took provided instructions and designs, and then worked collaboratively in an agile method.

Nadine Goetschalckx AXA Partners, Health Care Director

Software Development for Insurance Company

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

Introductory information

A fast induction on the buyer’s organisation

Nadine Goetschalckx: I’m the ruler of the third-party administration section of AXA Partners, overseeing hospitalization insurances for AXA Belgium. We feel insurance for 3,500 employers.

Respondent 2: I’m responsible for the business enabling team.

Desired goal

What challenge were you trying to address with Altkom?

R2: We’ve worked with them on the outgrowth of our new backend method, which was based on an existing platform. We then needed the outgrowth of two frontends, one for employers and one for the insured.

Provided solution

What particular tasks were responsible for?

NG: The application allows us to form contracts and estimate the feasibility of claims. Employers can use the gate to handle the insurance of their employees, and the insured can send claims.

R2: In the application, there is information for users almost their coverage and the premiums they have to pay. We gave Altkom some instructions and designs for the layouts of the gates, which had to agree to our organisation’s guidelines.

Was there a dedicated team?

NG: We worked with 5–7 nation, including a project handler from their team. There was a lot of turnover, which sometimes made things hard as the apprehension wasn’t always transferred.

How did you come to work with Altkom?

NG: We’d had a good collaboration with Altkom in the past, so we continued with them.

What are you approach expents (if diclosed)?

NG: The total was about €7 million (approachly $7.8 million USD).

What is the terminal result of working with ?

NG: We worked with Altkom between 2010–2016.

Results achieved

Are there any measureable or plum results?

R2: We had some accomplishment issues kindred to how Altkom setup the gate.

NG: It’s hard to prepare metrics owing we’ve made changes in 2018 and 2019 to befit more user-friendly, but we’ve had a good recur on contentment with the gate. Usage has increased in 2018 behind we took some action on interaction. We’ve also changed the look and functionalities of the gate for the insured.

How did Altkom accomplish from a project handlement standpoint?

NG: It was hanging on the nation used to make business requirements. Altkom had some veritably good nation implicated, but they were not always useful, especially toward the end of the project. Though, we have to acapprehension that they assigned some very competent nation, and it was a enjoyment to work with them. With that said, none of them are quiet there. We worked in nimble mode, in collaboration with Altkom, so there were no mockups.

R2: We interacted through phone, email, GoToMeeting, and Skype.

What is (from your point of view) the key factor to pay observation while intercourse with ?

NG: It was good to work with Altkom owing they already knew our business, having developed the old business application we had in locate.  

What aspects of their work would you like to get betterd?

NG: We would’ve preferred to have more observation during the collaboration, in order to better the user experience and interfaces. The application did all we were asking for, but it veritably wasn’t user-friendly. It was very confused and required good apprehension of how to use it.

R2: The UI is verity based on a standard we set up in the application, which is why it’s so hard to use.

Do you have any advice for forthcoming clients of theirs?

NG: No.