Why Start a Custom Software Development Company?
Dichotomy
I’ve always been a problem-solver kind of person. It’s a bit of a blessing-and-a-curse, honestly. I can be handed an issue, problem, or need, but I have trouble coming up with fresh ideas. I love custom software development, and it turns out that a lot of businesses have ideas for it. Ideas are plentiful, so I can do what I do best.
For years I’ve worked for businesses as a software engineer, architect, DevOps engineer, QA, and automation developer. These roles always had me looking for the next bug, hiccup, or optimization to make. I did this while thinking about what I would do differently if I ran the company or the business.
Could I do better?
It’s easy to think that I could do better than my employers have. It’s simple to look at the problems that they’re experiencing now with the benefit of hindsight. Having foresight, however, is nearly impossible. Prior experience can go a long way toward mitigating some of the problems, but many end up in major disarray. But why?
It’s a question I’ve thought through often, and deeply. There are millions of answers, I’m sure, but the collective still seems to struggle with solving even some of the more basic problems. Problems like communication, workflow definitions, and customer needs.
In the small companies I’ve worked for, we generally had a good feel for what our customers needed or wanted. If we didn’t, we’d just ask. This is because we were close to the customer. We often took the time to build a relationship with them and build a foundation of trust. Many needed custom software development, but could always afford the big-firm price tag, or the time commitment.
In these places, there were fewer employees so we could more quickly find and address problems. It was also cheaper and easier for staff to get together and build a community together. It built a company culture of support rather than a daily grind. When we trusted each other, we could lean on each other at work, and make a better product for clients. Basically, fewer staff members, to a point, made for happier clients.
Surely, then, with fewer employees and a more focused market, I could build a business that helped clientele. The company could better solve problems they had, right?
So bigger is worse?
Entities like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and so many more, must simply be too large, right?
Well, yes and no. It seems to me that the larger an organization becomes, the harder it is to steer the ship. This isn’t a revolutionary concept, it’s common sense. What this thought implies, however, is that these massive organizations hit a point in their growth where they couldn’t relate or be personable with their clients. They “pivoted” (to use a corporate word) away from “the customer is our top priority.” Instead, the follow the thought: “How can we serve the most people with the least investment?”
This isn’t a bad thought, just a different one. For companies looking to grow, it’s important to be efficient. They have to use as few resources as possible and produce revenue at a higher rate than expenditure. Basic economics. This transition, though, means that they can’t solve everyone’s problems. When a user base is that significant, it’s impossible to service the needs of a customer while maintaining a relationship. The burden of compromise and/or sacrifice falls on the customer, not the business offering their services.
Additionally, when a business grows to a certain size, their technology systems become encumbered. The cost of maintenance rises sharply, staff requirements grow exponentially, and system redesign/reimplementation/re-releasing becomes almost completely unrealistic.
It’s worth noting that none of the big names have a “custom software development” service for clients anymore. Not in the traditional sense, anyway. They build user interfaces for people to interact with, but the software is their own. The client doesn’t own anything but their data. But when software is talked about, people tend to think of “big tech.” The issues those name exhibit, though, are process and business issues that smaller firms don’t seem to face as much.
Opportunity in the wake of Big Tech
Ultimately, Iterix is just one person for now. We’re a company of one with a mission to help solve the digital problems our clients experience. I’m not perfect by any means. Iterix can custom tailor the work we do to each client, though. That agility is tougher the larger a firm gets. Bringing the development service closer to the client makes for a better tool, and often, a happier client overall. Iterix does just that: we do the heavy lifting of design and programming, but you drive what you need.
We also don’t need to spend countless hours and resources on server farms, buildings, or catch-all infrastructure. Simply put, we can be more agile in our problem solving than a company much larger than us. It’s exactly why our process looks like it does.
The 'X' factor
You may be asking: “But aren’t there a ton of other small development shops around?” or “Why open another one instead of working for one of them?”
That’s a pretty good question, honestly. I’ve had the privilege of gaining experience (in technology) in a wide variety of industries including manufacturing, finance, retail, hospitality, and more. I’ve worked in a lot of different technologies like server-side, web, desktop, mobile, and embedded applications using an even wider array of languages, scripts, and operating systems.
My specialty is in systems architecture, which is the process of distilling client needs into deliverable plans, diagrams, and blueprints for the purpose of development. I’ve spent over a decade not only designing, but implementing those designs into applications from mom and pop shops all the way up to custom enterprise systems. My work in development operations solidifies the release and continued improvement of those systems over time, making sure the application is always doing what it needs to according to what my (or our) clients have asked.
There many professionals like me out there, but I’ve yet to see one that approaches the development process the way Iterix does. I’ve yet to see one that doesn’t want to grow for growth’s sake or purely for monetary reasons. I’ve yet to see one sit down with a client and truly try to understand the issues they experience by watching actual users interact with a broken or inadequate system. I’m not saying these professionals don’t exist, nor am I saying that those professionals haven’t started their own boutique development business(es); I’m just saying that I’ve yet to see one.
Standing out
How does Iterix stand out, then?
It’s a three-pronged approach:
- Build a quality system with as few errors, issues, and “misses” from the specification as possible
- Deliver documentation, technical specifications, and testing results so that the client is well informed
- Constant auditing of software we build against emerging technologies to make sure the plan, application, and maintenance are up-to-date and modern so that your systems avoid time-centric degradation.
We use a variety of tools and systems to make sure the software we write is robust and future-resistant. Let’s face it, nothing is truly future proof, but ITerix focuses on tooling that is as easy to install, use, and extend as possible. Custom software development can be complex, but we’re trying to make it as simple as possible in a market that seems to always need more professionals.
About the Author
The driving force behind Iterix, bringing over a decade of experience in software engineering and system architecture. His journey spans diverse industries, from startup website development to enterprise manufacturing and insurance systems. He has designed several systems throughout his career and led teams in innovative re-architecture projects. Known for his expertise in the .NET ecosystem and a knack for solving complex problems, Steven’s approach is rooted in building strong client relationships and delivering custom-tailored solutions that exceed expectations. At Iterix, he combines technical mastery with a passion for problem solving to tailor his work to clients’ specific needs.