Working with tech partners

Rob Bowley

Read • 5 min

Pre-Seed
Seed

Avoid the common pitfalls start ups face when working with tech partners

Startups and growing organisations will often rely on technology partners, to build initial MVPs, scale up quickly, and be able to cost effectively flex with demand. Whilst doing so can deliver great results, it also comes fraught with risks. If not managed well, they can lead to costly overruns, rework, technical debt, or even jeopardise the business.

The good news is most of these issues are very common and easily avoidable. It’s a significant investment, so spending a bit more time upfront is worth it to save a lot of frustration later down the line.

Avoid the common pitfalls start ups face when working with tech partners

Choosing the right partner

Unfortunately, poor-quality agencies are more common than not in the tech industry. Many promise the world but fail to deliver, leaving startups with subpar products, missed targets and technical debt. Interestingly, price is not a reliable indicator of quality - an expensive local partner can deliver poor results just as easily as cheaper nearshore or offshore options. Take the time to do your due diligence:

Don’t rely solely on recommendations from peers or friends; a good partner for one project might not have the skills or approach you need for yours.
Speak to multiple providers to be able compare pricing, proposed solutions, engagement styles, and experience.
Request references and speak directly to past and current clients.

Avoiding the tail wagging the dog

Technology choices should be driven by your business needs, not by what a provider happens to specialise in. This can be particularly problematic if a partner chooses technologies that make it difficult to find future developers or partners.

Be cautious of providers who suggest tech options based primarily on their familiarity with them.
Unless there is a specific requirement, go with common, well known technologies.
Unless there’s a compelling reason, stick to well-known technologies and maintain consistency with your existing tech stack (if you have one).

Fixed Scope vs Time & Materials

Fixed scope works well for small, tightly defined projects like an MVP, where the goal is to get something simple in front of customers quickly. However, it’s less effective for more fluid requirements, where changes are likely during delivery, which is most common as even if you think requirements are clear, things often change once you get into delivery.

A time-and-materials approach is typically the most optimal approach as it is better suited for iterative and incremental development (“Agile”), but it comes with risks like cost unpredictability if priorities shift or work expands.

To manage this effectively:

Break work into small, end-to-end deliverables to deliver value frequently and adapt to feedback.
Clearly define roles and responsibilities for requirements, approvals, and sign-offs.
Set mutual SLAs for response times for queries and feedback to avoid delays.
Hold regular reviews to assess progress, manage scope, and improve collaboration.

Don’t become beholden to a partner

It’s unfortunately very common for orgs to get stuck in a position where they’re critically dependent on a tech partner, can lead to operational risks, making it difficult to switch providers or bring work in-house. Such dependencies are often flagged during funding rounds and can impact valuation or investment prospects.

At any point you want to be able to walk away:

Own all accounts for hosting, platforms, and tools.
Require comprehensive technical documentation, including details on setup, configuration, and deployment.
Clearly define intellectual property (IP) ownership in your contracts.

Operational requirements, not just features

Operational or “non-functional” requirements - such as maintainability and security - are as important as features. A product that’s hard to maintain or support quickly becomes a liability, regardless of its functionality.

Automation plays an essential role here and is far more cost-effective to implement upfront than try and retrofit later.

Operational requirements should be included in any schedule/scope of work:

Technical documentation to make knowledge transfer and future development easier.
Automated build and deployment (Continuous Delivery) to make it easy to deploy changes quickly.
Automated tests (unit, integration, and end-to-end) to reduce bugs, speed up delivery and reduces dependency on manual testing
Automated infrastructure (Infrastructure as Code) to ensures consistency and simplifies scaling.
Logging and monitoring to simplify troubleshooting
Security best practices to protect users and your business from preventable risks.

Partners who suggest these add significant time or cost should raise red flags.

Build a true partnership

The best outcomes come when your tech partner feels like part of your team. Partnerships thrive on trust, shared goals, and mutual accountability. When your partner understands your objectives and helps shape how to achieve them, you’re more likely to get a product that genuinely meets your needs - not just your initial wants and a greater return on your investment.

Focus on collaboration, communication, and alignment from the start.
Share the “why” behind decisions, not just the “what.”
Hold regular reviews to adapt and improve ways of working.

Factor in onboarding and ramp-up

Even the best partners need time to get up to speed. Many organisations underestimate how long it takes for a new provider to understand their systems, codebase, and goals.

Plan for a ramp-up period - typically at least a month.
Spend time making sure they understand your business and goals and expect that even standalone projects will require input and support from your internal team.
For meaningful impact, it’s best to typically budget for a minimum three-month engagement, especially for larger or more complex projects.