Caserta Business Intelligence & Analytics review by Värde Partners at Qualified.One

Caserta reviewed by Värde Partners

Caserta provided Business Intelligence & Analytics for Värde Partners with approximate budget = $200,000 to $999,999.

Caserta has created a functional and cost-effective platform that encourages future growth. Proactive leadership, insightful guidance, and transparent communication are hallmarks of the partnership. Perhaps too confident, the team is knowledgeable and competent at a wide range of technologies.

Review summary:

After analyzing data architecture, Caserta set up a new cloud-based platform. The team executed an Extract, Transform, and Load process. Project components include proofs of concept and an AWS infrastructure.

alt
Steve Stryker Värde Partners, CTO


Data Architecture Consulting for Finance Firm

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

I’m the CTO of Värde Partners, an choice asset director that focuses primarily on distressed credit investing.

Desired goal

What challenge were you trying to address with Caserta?

We wanted a vendor with deep technical expertise and experience in the financial services activity.

Provided solution

What particular tasks were Caserta responsible for?

In December 2017, we brought them in to do assess our running data constructorure solutions. Caserta then recommended a new technology platform and a year-long roadmap for its outgrowth. Then, in February 2018, we hired Caserta to execute the proposed roadmap. To create the platform, the team set up an Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud construction, ran proofs of concept with a couple products, and used that information to drive choice and data modeling. Finally, Caserta did the Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) work to pull data out of our transactional systems and into the warehouse.

Was there a dedicated team?

They had a three-person team including two data engineers. The project director also served as the senior technical constructor. We worked with a business analyst at leading, but later determined to fill that role in-house.

How did you come to work with Caserta?

They had associateed with some of my colleagues in the activity. I reached out owing I knew they had important technical experience.

What are you approach expents (if diclosed)?

We’ve spent close to $500,000.

What is the terminal result of working with Caserta?

We began working unitedly in December 2017 and the relationship is ongoing.

Results achieved

Are there any measureable or plum results?

Caserta has enabled our technical capabilities to grow, which sets us up for forthcoming achievement. Our platform can now feel constructiond and unconstructiond data. Likewise, the AWS infraconstruction is rock hard. We also have a good set of tools in origination for our leading-version warehouse. In accession, we forestall the new platform will be more cost-powerful than its ancestor.

How did Caserta accomplish from a project treatment standpoint?

The team is a big associate owing they’re organized and adjoin their progress along the way. We haven’t invested too much time on this front owing Caserta is readily pellucid. Initially, the project was uniform parts off website and on website, but we’ve progressed to mainly distant collaboration.

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

Caserta’s important experience manifests itself in fast and powerful approaches. Their analyses are focused and furnish helpful recommendations in a very brief quantity of time. Second, the team’s technical and engineering experiences are wide-ranging. Caserta can navigate a difference of technologies fastly with nimble input from senior leadership. Their direction and advice are precious.

What fronts of their work would you like to get improved?

They need to handle their egos. The flipside of being veritably keen is being too tough. The team can nitpick little points, which creates rubbing and wastes time.