Orbit Media Studios

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Harbour Digital BV is a Financial Services business based in Utrecht, Netherlands. As Head of Platform Engineering, I own the technology strategy and vendor relationships. Every spending decision gets evaluated against a concrete business case — we do not invest in technology for its own sake.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Honestly, we had been deferring this Embedded Systems Development investment for eighteen months. User feedback had been consistent and our conversion data confirmed the impact. We eventually ran out of reasons to delay.

What services did the company provide for your project?

Primarily Embedded Systems Development, with QA and solution architecture included in scope. They owned the build end-to-end from requirements through to go-live, including three existing system integrations. Not needing to coordinate separate QA or architecture vendors was genuinely valuable.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

We had been through a failed engagement the year before and took vendor selection seriously this time. We asked specific questions about how they handle scope change, estimate work, and communicate problems. The answers were consistent across everyone we spoke to, which suggested the process was real rather than sales-trained.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Well. They pushed back on areas where our requirements were vague or poorly thought through and helped us arrive at something more considered. That consultative approach during discovery is not universal and it made a real difference to the quality of what was built.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

Very strong on the async side, which mattered given the time difference between Utrecht, Netherlands and the delivery team. Written updates were specific and consistent, decisions got responses the same day, and nothing was dropped across a five-month engagement. That discipline is harder than it looks.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Yes on both. There was one sprint where a third-party API dependency introduced a one-week slip. They flagged it three weeks before it became critical, presented two options, and we agreed on one that recovered the timeline within the same sprint. That kind of foresight is the difference between good and average project management.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Four months live. User adoption exceeded our first-month target by around 20%. Support volume is down. Features we had deferred for years because the old architecture made them too expensive to build are now in active development. The platform opened our roadmap.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The fact that problems surfaced upward before they became crises. I have worked on enough vendor engagements to know that the ability to manage upward — to raise bad news early rather than bury it — is genuinely rare. This team did it consistently.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes, with the caveat that they are not the cheapest option and they are selective about what they take on. If price is the primary criterion there are alternatives. If you want a Embedded Systems Development partner in the Financial Services space who will actually deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

We are a Manufacturing company based in Edinburgh, UK. My role as Chief Technology Officer at Northumbria FinTech Ltd means I sit at the intersection of business goals and technical delivery — which means I care a lot about vendors who can translate between both.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Our internal team was good but maxed out. The Embedded Systems Development work needed for this phase of the product required a depth of experience we did not have internally, and could not build in time.

What services did the company provide for your project?

End-to-end Embedded Systems Development delivery with particular focus on the data migration and integration workstreams, which carried the highest project risk. A dedicated QA resource was embedded throughout development and they left us with a proper operations runbook at handover.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

The questions they asked during the briefing were the first signal. Vendors who ask precise questions in the sales process tend to apply the same discipline during delivery. The technical proposal was detailed, the team was senior, and the pricing was transparent. All three were factors.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Very well. The discovery process was more thorough than anything we had experienced before. They challenged requirements that were vague, proposed better alternatives where our thinking was limiting, and produced a spec that our stakeholders agreed was the clearest articulation of the product they had ever seen written down.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

I used to chase status updates weekly on vendor engagements. This was the first time I did not have to. Updates came consistently, problems surfaced early, and the shared project board always reflected reality rather than optimism.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

On time and on budget. The estimation accuracy was the part I found most impressive — they had broken the work down thoroughly enough during discovery that the forecast held throughout rather than drifting with every scope conversation. We had one change request, and it was for scope we had added ourselves.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Five months post-launch: zero P1 incidents, Core Web Vitals in the green, and two enterprise clients who had been citing platform limitations in renewal conversations have since renewed without raising the issue. The system is doing what we needed it to do.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The directness. When our requirements were unclear, they said so. When our priorities were contradictory, they explained why. When a technical approach we assumed was right had significant downsides, they told us before we committed. That kind of honesty is what I actually want from a technology partner.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes. I would specifically recommend them for Embedded Systems Development projects where getting the requirements right at the start is critical. That is where they earn their fees — and the downstream delivery reflects it.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

I am the Founder at Meridian SaaS Ltd, a Information Technology company headquartered in Bristol, UK. My role covers product, platform, and the vendor partnerships that support them. We had reached a point where our internal team could not execute our roadmap fast enough without outside help.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Our previous vendor had left us with three years of accumulated technical debt. Delivery velocity had dropped to maybe a third of what it should have been. We needed new engineering eyes and a structured plan to dig out.

What services did the company provide for your project?

Low-Code / No-Code Development design and build, plus the performance testing that revealed an architecture concern we needed to address before launch. The testing investment paid for itself. They also handled the deployment pipeline and monitoring configuration, which our internal team had not budgeted time for.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

We shortlisted five vendors. Two were eliminated immediately based on the technical proposals. Of the remaining three, this team's Low-Code / No-Code Development approach was the most specific and evidenced — actual Information Technology reference cases, not generic slides. The reference calls confirmed what the proposal described.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Well. They pushed back on areas where our requirements were vague or poorly thought through and helped us arrive at something more considered. That consultative approach during discovery is not universal and it made a real difference to the quality of what was built.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

Communication was proactive and well-calibrated. Technical detail for the engineering audience, executive summaries for the steering group, and risks raised with proposed mitigations rather than just problem statements. The fortnightly sprint reviews kept our stakeholders informed without pulling them into every working session.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Delivered on time. We had one week of unplanned delay due to an external API issue that neither party controlled. They communicated it early, proposed a workaround, and the launch date stayed the same. That is how delays should be managed.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Hard to isolate perfectly given other business variables, but the metrics attributable to the Low-Code / No-Code Development work are meaningful — session time up, conversion up, error rate down, NPS for the digital channel improved by double digits. Account managers say it is coming up positively in client conversations for the first time.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The fact that problems surfaced upward before they became crises. I have worked on enough vendor engagements to know that the ability to manage upward — to raise bad news early rather than bury it — is genuinely rare. This team did it consistently.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Absolutely. We are scoping a second engagement and I expect this to become a multi-year partnership. For anyone in the Information Technology space looking for serious Low-Code / No-Code Development delivery, I would put them at the top of the evaluation list.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

East Asia Commerce KK is a Energy & Utilities business based in Osaka, Japan. As Head of Product Development, I own the technology strategy and vendor relationships. Every spending decision gets evaluated against a concrete business case — we do not invest in technology for its own sake.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Compliance requirements in our Energy & Utilities space changed and the deadline was set by our regulator, not by us. The Quality Assurance & Testing work required was specialist enough that pulling our internal team off the product roadmap to do it was not an option.

What services did the company provide for your project?

End-to-end Quality Assurance & Testing delivery with particular focus on the data migration and integration workstreams, which carried the highest project risk. A dedicated QA resource was embedded throughout development and they left us with a proper operations runbook at handover.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

A peer in the Energy & Utilities sector had used them for a similar Quality Assurance & Testing engagement and recommended them without qualification. Our own due diligence confirmed the picture they described. The combination of domain knowledge and delivery track record made the decision straightforward.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Very well. The discovery process was more thorough than anything we had experienced before. They challenged requirements that were vague, proposed better alternatives where our thinking was limiting, and produced a spec that our stakeholders agreed was the clearest articulation of the product they had ever seen written down.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

I used to chase status updates weekly on vendor engagements. This was the first time I did not have to. Updates came consistently, problems surfaced early, and the shared project board always reflected reality rather than optimism.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Yes on both. There was one sprint where a third-party API dependency introduced a one-week slip. They flagged it three weeks before it became critical, presented two options, and we agreed on one that recovered the timeline within the same sprint. That kind of foresight is the difference between good and average project management.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Hard to isolate perfectly given other business variables, but the metrics attributable to the Quality Assurance & Testing work are meaningful — session time up, conversion up, error rate down, NPS for the digital channel improved by double digits. Account managers say it is coming up positively in client conversations for the first time.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The directness. When our requirements were unclear, they said so. When our priorities were contradictory, they explained why. When a technical approach we assumed was right had significant downsides, they told us before we committed. That kind of honesty is what I actually want from a technology partner.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes. I would specifically recommend them for Quality Assurance & Testing projects where getting the requirements right at the start is critical. That is where they earn their fees — and the downstream delivery reflects it.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

As Chief Technology Officer at Nordic Cloud AB, a Financial Services organisation in Stockholm, Sweden, I manage technology investment and delivery outcomes. We make commercial decisions about technology — every project needs a credible case before it gets approved.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Honestly, we had been deferring this Low-Code / No-Code Development investment for eighteen months. User feedback had been consistent and our conversion data confirmed the impact. We eventually ran out of reasons to delay.

What services did the company provide for your project?

The core engagement was Low-Code / No-Code Development delivery. During discovery they also provided technical consultancy that materially improved our requirements — things we would not have caught until development if they had not raised them. They also took ownership of the third-party integrations that had caused problems in previous projects.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

The questions they asked during the briefing were the first signal. Vendors who ask precise questions in the sales process tend to apply the same discipline during delivery. The technical proposal was detailed, the team was senior, and the pricing was transparent. All three were factors.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Well. They pushed back on areas where our requirements were vague or poorly thought through and helped us arrive at something more considered. That consultative approach during discovery is not universal and it made a real difference to the quality of what was built.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

Professional and efficient. The PM had a clear view of the critical path at all times and was transparent when anything threatened it. We made one significant scope change mid-project. It was handled through a proper change request, fairly priced, and absorbed without disrupting the delivery timeline.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

On time. Budget was within the approved ceiling, including one scope addition we introduced mid-project that was quoted fairly and handled in parallel without affecting the main delivery stream. No surprises at invoice stage.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Hard to isolate perfectly given other business variables, but the metrics attributable to the Low-Code / No-Code Development work are meaningful — session time up, conversion up, error rate down, NPS for the digital channel improved by double digits. Account managers say it is coming up positively in client conversations for the first time.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The fact that problems surfaced upward before they became crises. I have worked on enough vendor engagements to know that the ability to manage upward — to raise bad news early rather than bury it — is genuinely rare. This team did it consistently.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes. I would specifically recommend them for Low-Code / No-Code Development projects where getting the requirements right at the start is critical. That is where they earn their fees — and the downstream delivery reflects it.