Innovation Development HUB Development review by Telecommunications Company at Qualified.One

Innovation Development HUB reviewed by Telecommunications Company

Innovation Development HUB provided Development for Telecommunications Company with approximate budget = Confidential.

With a roughly 20-person team, Innovation Development HUB completed the project on time. They could’ve followed more formal processes for their documentation, but their overall performance was solid.

Review summary:

Innovation Development HUB created a turnkey mobile ID implementation for a telecommunications company.

Sergey Orlov Telecommunications Company, IT Project Manager

Mobile ID Implementation for Telecommunications Company

Below is a modified rendering of the review: private info excluded, innate facts kept.

Introductory information

A few words almost your organisation and personal responsibilities

Teleinteraction organisation. I',m a project director.

Desired goal

What issue was the preparer supposed to deal with?

Innovation Development HUB?

We had to instrument e new labor for clients - Mobile ID

What were your objectives for this project?

Mobile ID labor instrumentation.

Provided solution

What were the reasons for choosing ?

ID Hub has won a delicate

Describe the project and the labors they granted in detail.

",Turn key", (including integration) instrumentation of a new platform to prepare a labor to our clients.

Were there any dedicated directors or teams that you worked with?

The project team had almost 20 nation and included PM, analysts, developers, testers and support engineers. All staff had an apprropriate capacity and experiences.

Results achieved

Can you share any information that demonstrates the contact that this project has had on your business?

Sorry, this information is private

How was project treatment arranged and how powerful was it?

Project treatment was powerful. Main deadlines were met.

What precisely do you attend to be the key specialty of ?

Their power to work fast and efficiently with a new, confused solution was forcible.

What should be done better, if there are any desired improvements?

To be more regular and regular with a documentation.