Why Nearshoring Is a Safer Alternative to Offshore Outsourcing in 2025

Why Nearshoring Is a Safer Alternative to Offshore Outsourcing in 2025

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Hand selecting a secure location on a global checklist, representing safe nearshore outsourcing choices for U.S. companies

Introduction

For over two decades, offshore outsourcing has been the standard for tech companies seeking cost-effective ways to scale their software development efforts. With teams based in regions like India, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia, the promise of budget-friendly development attracted thousands of businesses. But in 2025, priorities have shifted. U.S.-based tech companies, especially those in tech hubs like Dallas and Austin, now seek more than just savings. They want speed, cultural alignment, legal security, and better collaboration.

This is where nearshoring stands out. For growing tech teams in Austin or Dallas, working with a nearshore partner in Mexico offers unmatched strategic benefits. From timezone overlap to legal alignment and cultural affinity, nearshoring is no longer a secondary option, it’s quickly becoming the standard for companies that value speed, security, and successful delivery.

The Key Risks of Offshore Outsourcing (A Brief Recap)

Offshore outsourcing still offers savings, but often at the expense of productivity, quality, or security. Here are the most common issues:

Offshore Risk
Description
Time Zone Misalignment Limited real-time collaboration, causing delays in feedback and delivery.
Communication Barriers Language differences lead to misunderstandings, rework, and tension.
IP and Legal Vulnerabilities Contracts may not align with U.S. law, complicating IP ownership.
Unpredictable Delivery Inconsistent quality and delivery timelines create project instability.
Lack of Cultural Fit Misaligned work styles and expectations disrupt team dynamics.

These issues are especially painful for companies trying to meet tight deadlines, maintain code quality, and ensure that development outcomes match strategic goals. Offshore teams often operate with limited visibility and delayed feedback, leading to missed expectations and long-term technical debt.

For a deeper look, check out our full blog on the 10 Risks of Offshore Outsourcing

What Nearshoring Does Differently (and Better)

Nearshore software development, especially when based in Mexico, tackles offshore’s pain points head-on:

  • Time Zone Overlap: Nearshore teams in Mexico work in Central Time, aligning seamlessly with teams in Texas. This allows for daily standups, shared sprints, and real-time support — crucial for fast-paced product environments.
  • Cultural Compatibility: With strong ties to the U.S. market, many Mexican developers are bilingual and accustomed to Agile collaboration styles. Communication flows naturally, and teams adapt quickly to U.S.-based work rhythms.
  • IP & Legal Simplicity: Contracts aligned with U.S. legal frameworks reduce the risk of IP theft or disputes. Nearshore partners like Scio operate under frameworks that protect U.S. interests.
  • Closer Collaboration: Physical proximity enables in-person meetings, company visits, and hybrid team-building — a human connection that’s often missing in offshore setups.
  • Higher Productivity: Agile ceremonies, quick feedback loops, and minimal time lag result in faster sprints and fewer blockers.

«In nearshoring, it’s not just about saving money. It’s about making smarter, safer, and faster development decisions.»

Unlike offshore vendors that sometimes feel like black-box operations, nearshore teams often function as true extensions of your internal team — embedded in your culture, objectives, and communication rituals.

Digital map of Mexico glowing with data connections, representing nearshore tech collaboration with the U.S.
Mexico offers unmatched alignment for U.S. tech companies seeking nearshore partnerships.

Why Mexico Is the Best Nearshore Destination for U.S. Tech Companies

Mexico is uniquely positioned to serve U.S. tech companies with reliability and strategic alignment. Here’s why it stands out among nearshore destinations:

1. Same Time Zone as Texas

means real-time communication during your business hours. This synchronicity enables fast iterations, instant troubleshooting, and real partnership-building.

2. Experienced Tech Talent

According to OECD data, Mexico graduates over 130,000 engineers annually. Many of these professionals have experience working with U.S. companies, speak fluent English, and are trained in Agile methodologies, making them strong candidates for high-performance software teams.

3. Bilingual Communication

Mexico’s tech ecosystem has evolved with the U.S. as a primary client base. English proficiency — particularly among developers and engineering managers — is a core requirement. That eliminates misunderstandings and increases collaboration quality.

4. Legal and Economic Stability

The USMCA agreement creates a solid framework for cross-border business. Mexican providers that understand the legal requirements of U.S. clients can offer contracts that align with U.S. law — a critical difference compared to many offshore countries with less predictable legal systems.

5. Scio: A Proven Nearshore Partner

Scio has provided high-performing nearshore software engineering teams for nearly two decades. Our model emphasizes:

  • Cultural alignment from day one
  • Strategic onboarding
  • Transparent, U.S.-compatible contracts
  • Agile team integration and long-term success planning

We build more than teams — we build trust.

Real-World Scenarios: When Nearshoring Beats Offshore

The advantages of nearshoring become most apparent in these common software development situations:
Scenario
Why Nearshore Wins
Rapid Product Scaling Real-time collaboration allows for faster onboarding and delivery.
Team Augmentation Seamless integration with your existing Agile squads, with shared work styles and rituals.
Time-Sensitive Feature Development Same-day feedback and iteration cycles enable high responsiveness.
Security-Conscious Projects Legal alignment ensures full IP protection and contractual enforcement.
Communication-Heavy Roles English-speaking developers reduce friction and enable direct engagement with stakeholders.
These scenarios are especially common for startups and growth-stage companies that rely on speed, adaptability, and constant iteration — qualities that nearshoring, not offshoring, best supports.

Nearshoring as a Long-Term Strategic Investment

Choosing a nearshore partner isn’t just a tactical fix — it’s a strategic decision that influences your company’s long-term growth. In 2025 and beyond, software is no longer just a department — it’s the core of your business strategy. Nearshoring allows companies to:
  • Build stable, long-lasting teams without the high churn rates associated with offshore contractors.
  • Invest in shared knowledge and domain expertise, as engineers stay embedded for the long term.
  • Foster innovation through proximity, cultural rapport, and tighter collaboration loops.
  • Create hybrid team models that enable cross-border synergy without sacrificing control.
At Scio, we see nearshoring not as a substitute, but as an evolution — one that meets modern business realities with a balance of agility, quality, and human connection.
Wooden blocks with question marks and global location icons, symbolizing common doubts about nearshore and offshore outsourcing
Still comparing nearshoring and offshore? Here are the answers tech leaders ask most.

FAQs: Nearshore vs Offshore

Q: Isn’t offshore outsourcing cheaper than nearshoring?

A: Sometimes upfront, yes. But when you factor in rework, delays, security risks, and miscommunication, nearshoring offers better long-term ROI.

Q: How is nearshoring to Mexico different from hiring a U.S. team?

A: You get the cultural and legal alignment of a U.S. team with significantly lower costs.

Q: What if I need developers with specific tech stacks?

A: Mexico has a growing pool of senior engineers across stacks like React, .NET, Python, Java, Node.js, and mobile development. Scio specializes in custom team builds tailored to your tech requirements.

Q: Can I visit the team in person?

A: Absolutely. Proximity makes on-site visits simple, especially from Texas. Many Scio clients schedule quarterly visits or hybrid retreats with our teams.

Q: What’s Scio’s approach to team integration?

A: We prioritize cultural fit, onboarding alignment, and long-term collaboration. Our developers aren’t freelancers — they’re embedded into your workflows as full team members, often staying on projects for years.

Q: What’s the average engagement duration with Scio teams?

A: Most of our clients work with us for 3–5+ years, citing stability, performance, and strategic alignment as key reasons for staying.

Is Nearshoring Right for You? Self-Assessment Checklist

If you’re unsure whether nearshoring is the right fit for your company, use this quick self-assessment to evaluate alignment:

Question
Why It Matters
Are your delivery timelines being pushed due to offshore communication lags? Time zone gaps often slow down agile processes and release cycles.
Do you often spend time “translating” requirements culturally or linguistically? Misunderstandings create rework and misaligned outcomes.
Are legal contracts unclear or hard to enforce across borders? IP and compliance issues can escalate quickly in offshore setups.
Would real-time collaboration unblock your team? Same-day feedback accelerates iteration and team velocity.

If you answered «yes» to two or more, your business is likely ready for a nearshore solution designed for strategic alignment and growth.

Conclusion: 2025 Is the Year of Smarter Outsourcing

Tech leaders in the U.S. can no longer afford the risks of offshore outsourcing. With rising pressure to deliver fast, securely, and collaboratively, nearshoring is no longer a backup plan — it’s the better plan. Especially for companies in Austin or Dallas, the strategic benefits of working with a nearshore partner like Scio are clear:
  • Less friction, more delivery
  • Cultural and legal alignment
  • Real-time collaboration
  • Transparent contracts and IP safety
Let’s explore how a nearshore partnership with Scio can help you scale without the common offshore headaches. Contact Us to Start the Conversation Still unsure whether your current team setup is working? Discover how we ensure long-term collaboration and performance in our post: How We Build Teams That Actually Work
Traditional vs. Agile Software Development Method:  Which One is Right for Your Project?

Traditional vs. Agile Software Development Method: Which One is Right for Your Project?

Traditional vs. Agile Software Development: Which One is Right for Your U.S. Project?
As a CTO or VP of Engineering in the U.S., you’re constantly balancing speed, quality, compliance, and team alignment. One decision that has a direct impact on all of these outcomes is your software development methodology.

In this post, we’ll compare the two dominant approaches, Traditional (Waterfall) and Agile software development, to help you decide which one best suits your project, your team, and your company culture. Whether you’re in a regulated industry, scaling a startup in Dallas or Austin, or exploring nearshore collaboration with Latin America, this guide is designed for you.

What Is Traditional Software Development?

Often referred to as the Waterfall model, traditional development follows a linear, step-by-step process:

  • Requirements gathering
  • System design
  • Development
  • Testing
  • Deployment
  • Maintenance

Each stage is completed before the next one begins. For U.S. companies operating in regulated sectors like healthcare or banking, this predictability and documentation-heavy process is often preferred due to compliance requirements.

In practice, traditional development tends to be rigid and formal. Everything is scoped out before coding begins, and changes introduced mid-project can disrupt the entire flow. However, this method can be highly effective for projects with clear, unchanging requirements. When all stakeholders are aligned from the beginning and outcomes are well-defined, traditional development provides clarity and control.

Pros:

  • Clear milestones and deadlines
  • Thorough documentation
  • Easier stakeholder approval

Cons:

  • Less room for flexibility
  • Late discovery of issues
  • Costly to adapt once the project is underway
What Is Agile Software Development?

What Is Agile Software Development?

Agile development is iterative, collaborative, and adaptive. Instead of a rigid sequence, Agile breaks work into smaller units (sprints), delivering incremental value every few weeks.

Key Agile Practices Include:

  • Daily standups
  • Sprint planning and retrospectives
  • Cross-functional teams
  • Continuous delivery and feedback

Agile is built on the idea that change is inevitable—and that it’s better to embrace it than resist it. The framework enables teams to respond quickly to shifts in requirements or market needs. For fast-growing startups or digital transformation projects in U.S. cities like Austin, this adaptability is a game-changer.

The Agile approach also encourages close collaboration between business stakeholders and developers, which leads to a more refined and relevant end product. Feedback loops are built into every sprint, allowing for constant learning and improvement.

Pros:

  • Flexibility to adjust scope
  • Early and continuous delivery
  • Increased customer collaboration

Cons:

  • Requires high team engagement
  • Can lack upfront clarity
  • Scope creep, if not managed well

Related reading: From Waterfall to Agile: How to Migrate Without Losing Product Stability

 

Traditional vs. Agile: A Quick Comparison

Phase  Traditional  Agile 
Requirements  Defined upfront  Defined per sprint 
Design  Complete before dev  Evolving and lightweight 
Development  Linear  Iterative (1–4 weeks) 
Testing  After build  Continuous 
Deployment  One-time  Frequent 
Change  Costly  Welcomed 
Traditional vs. Agile: A Quick Comparison

Choosing the Right Fit for Your Project

The decision between traditional and Agile is not black and white. In fact, many teams adopt hybrid models—combining upfront planning with Agile delivery cycles—to get the best of both worlds.

Choose Traditional If:

  • You operate in a heavily regulated U.S. industry.
  • Your project scope is unlikely to change.
  • You need formal approval checkpoints.

Choose Agile If:

  • You need to move quickly in competitive markets like Austin or Dallas.
  • Your product vision may evolve based on feedback.
  • You want a collaborative, iterative approach.

It’s also worth considering the experience and culture of your team. If your developers and product managers are used to Agile rituals and empowered decision-making, trying to implement a rigid waterfall plan may backfire. On the other hand, if your organization thrives on predictability and tight controls, traditional methods may still serve you well.

What If You’re Working with a Nearshore Team?

For many U.S. tech leaders, nearshoring to Latin America is an attractive alternative to offshore models. It enables Agile collaboration in real-time, thanks to overlapping time zones, cultural alignment, and strong communication skills.

  • A nearshore team in Mexico, for instance, can:
  • Join your daily standups and sprint reviews
  • Adapt quickly to changes in scope
  • Share Agile values and methodologies

This makes Agile not only feasible but often ideal when working with a culturally aligned nearshore partner.

At Scio, we’ve seen U.S. clients make the switch to nearshore Agile teams not just for convenience, but for quality. The ability to iterate quickly, validate early, and build strong working relationships—without late-night calls or endless documentation—has become a significant differentiator.

Explore more: What Software Development Managers Really Worry About When Outsourcing to LATAM

traditional vs agile methodologies

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Agile and Traditional development?

Agile is iterative and adaptive, while Traditional is sequential and rigid. Agile allows for faster feedback and adjustment, Traditional focuses on predictability and documentation.

Which methodology is better for regulated industries in the U.S.?

Traditional development is often favored in healthcare, finance, and government due to its structured documentation and fixed approval checkpoints.

Can Agile and Traditional be combined?

Yes. Many teams use a hybrid approach—planning the high-level scope upfront, but executing delivery in Agile sprints.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between Traditional and Agile isn’t about picking a “better” method—it’s about choosing what’s right for your project, team, and market. For many U.S. companies—especially those in high-growth regions like Texas—Agile is becoming the go-to strategy. But there are still valid cases for Traditional methods, especially in legacy-heavy or compliance-driven environments.

At the end of the day, the best development methodology is the one that helps your team deliver high-quality software, on time and within budget, while remaining aligned with your business objectives.

Need help deciding?

At Scio, we provide culturally aligned, high-performing nearshore Agile teams that are easy to work with. Our developers work in your time zone, understand your product vision, and deliver consistently—so you can focus on scaling your business.

Contact us to explore your options with a strategic nearshore partner.

If Your Tech Team Can’t Talk to Users, AI Will Take Their Jobs (and You’ll Be an Accomplice)

If Your Tech Team Can’t Talk to Users, AI Will Take Their Jobs (and You’ll Be an Accomplice)

By Guillermo Tena
Conceptual illustration of a human and an AI figure facing each other, symbolizing the relationship between technology and humanity, with "AI" at the center.

Why User Conversations Are Your Most Underused Engineering Tool

Not long ago, after one of those painfully failed product validations, I found myself wondering: how many key decisions have I made without truly understanding who I’m trying to help? I’ll admit—it hurt to realize the answer.

As a Founder / Product Owner / Business Developer, I’ve had the privilege of working with brilliant technical minds. People who write code like poetry—masters of distributed systems, CI/CD, pipelines—the whole stack. But when it comes to having a genuine conversation with a user, many freeze up. Not because they don’t care, but because no one ever taught them the art of asking the right questions.

If you’re a CTO or COO leading a software team—especially in growth-stage companies from Austin to Dallas—here’s your wake-up call:

If your engineers can’t talk to users, you’re not just building in the dark. You’re handing the job to AI, one disconnected sprint at a time.

What Happens When Dev Teams Work Without User Signals

Without user context, your team may:

  • Ship features instead of solving real problems.
  • Use deadlines as the only motivator—eroding product purpose.
  • Iterate fast, but in circles.
  • Turn your backlog into a graveyard of half-guessed ideas.
  • Miss out on disruptive innovation. Real innovation comes from human empathy, not just roadmaps.

I once led a team where the technical challenge wasn’t particularly complex. A CTO told me building the KHERO app didn’t feel “intellectually interesting.” Later, I realized my mistake: I hadn’t explained the impact of what we were building. If I had conveyed that his work would help thousands of people feel like heroes and change the lives of hundreds of breast cancer survivors, I’m sure his perspective would’ve shifted.

When your developers fall in love with the problem, not just the tech, you’ve got an unstoppable team—even when the intellectual challenge isn’t the biggest.

The Mom Test: Why It Should Be Required Reading for Tech Leads

Based on The Mom Test by Rob Fitzpatrick, here’s what we train our developers to do:

  • Don’t pitch—listen.
  • Wrong: “Would you use this?”
    Right: “How did you solve this last time?”

  • Ignore compliments.
  • “Sounds good” ≠ commitment. Real signals come from past actions, not vague future promises.

  • Ask about reality, not hypotheticals.
  • “Would you walk to fundraise?” → 100% yes.
    “Do you walk or run? When was the last time?” → 20% follow-through. Reality > good intentions.

We seek validation, but what we really need is truth. And truth doesn’t emerge when you talk—it shows up when you listen.

Using this shift in approach, we fine-tuned our segment and doubled download and usage rates for the KHERO app.

Developer participating in remote customer call to strengthen nearshore team collaboration

Want to Build a Better Team Culture? Start with This Ritual

We implement a simple practice called Coffee with Customers for our engineering teams (in Mexico, Colombia, and with partners in Texas):

  • Prep (15 min): Devs create one hypothesis and write 3 user-safe questions.
  • Live Call (20 min): A real user call—no selling, just learning.
  • Post-Mortem: We analyze what we learned, share it, and use it to shape the backlog.

The result?
Devs stop building because someone said so. They start building because someone needs it.

For CTOs, COOs & Product Leaders: This Is About More Than Research—It’s About Leadership

A tech lead who can’t explain the “why” behind a sprint is managing, not leading.
Great leaders:

  • Create space for devs to hear users.
  • Reward curiosity over code volume.
  • Coach their teams to spot truths hiding in plain sight.

Why This Matters in Nearshore Teams

With distributed teams across LATAM, communication gaps can multiply. But when nearshore engineers—like those we place from Morelia to Medellín—talk to end users in real time, everything changes:

  • Higher alignment
  • Better backlog quality
  • Shorter cycles
  • Stronger culture
  • Lower churn

Person using a laptop and holding a coffee cup while reviewing code and remote collaboration tools—symbolizing the flexibility of modern tech work.

Final Thoughts (and a Gift)

I’ve made all the mistakes—mistaking interest for intent, validating products with my own pitch, skipping user contact. But I’ve learned. And I’m still learning.

If you want a practical, one-page cheat sheet based on The Mom Test—something you can use in your next team meeting—just reach out to me at linkedin.com/in/guillermotp

Remember:
Don’t try to be interesting. Stay interested.

Guillermo Tena

Guillermo Tena

Head of Growth
Founder @ KHERO (clients: Continental, AMEX GBT, etc.) Head of Growth @ SCIO Consultant & Lecturer in Growth and Consumer Behavior

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Wooden scale with yellow blocks representing technical debt and misaligned expectations imbalance

Introduction:

What Causes Software Project Delays—and What Costs More?

For U.S. tech companies—especially those in Texas—technical debt and misaligned expectations are two silent risks that can compromise delivery when working with nearshore software development teams in Latin America.

We all know that poorly written, unmaintained, or rushed code (technical debt) leads to bugs and cost overruns. But what about when your team builds exactly what was asked—only to realize it wasn’t what was expected?

This article explores:

  • What technical debt really costs
  • How misaligned expectations silently sabotage agile teams
  • Which problem costs more—and why
  • How strategic digital nearshoring can reduce both risks

According to the 2023 State of Agile Report by Digital.ai, 49% of agile teams cite misaligned expectations and unclear requirements as the leading cause of delivery delays. This makes expectation alignment not just a communication issue—but a strategic priority in distributed and nearshore software development environments.

What Technical Debt Really Means in Software Projects

Technical debt refers to the hidden cost of choosing quick, suboptimal solutions in code that must be “paid back” through future refactoring, bug fixes, and maintenance.

Common causes of technical debt:

  • Rushed development for MVPs or deadlines
  • Poor architectural decisions
  • Lack of automated testing
  • Legacy code and developer turnover
  • No time allocated for refactoring

A 2023 study by Beta Breakers reveals that 50% of a project’s software budget is often spent fixing issues after delivery, highlighting how unchecked technical debt becomes a massive drain on engineering resources—and ROI.

How technical debt impacts your project:

  • Slows down development velocity
  • Increases cost of maintenance
  • Introduces fragile, hard-to-scale systems
  • Undermines team morale and innovation

What Are Misaligned Expectations in Agile Software Projects?

Misaligned expectations occur when stakeholders and teams have differing understandings of project goals, timelines, or definitions of completion. This misalignment can lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and project delays.

How Do Misaligned Expectations Affect Agile Teams?

  • Stakeholders may expect fully production-ready features.
  • Developers might consider «done» as «coded, not tested or deployed.»
  • Product owners could assume a shared understanding of backlog priorities.

Such discrepancies can result in:

  • Endless rework and scope creep.
  • Tension between teams and stakeholders.
  • Delivery of features that don’t align with business needs.
  • Frustration stemming from perceived underperformance.

According to McKinsey, technical debt can consume up to 40% of the value of a company’s technology estate, diverting resources from innovation to maintenance.

Furthermore, companies with mature product and operating models have 60% greater total returns to shareholders, indicating the financial benefits of alignment and effective operating structures.

Illustration representing the contrast between technical debt and misaligned development efforts

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More?

Aspect
Technical Debt
Misaligned Expectations
Definition Quick fixes that sacrifice long-term code quality Gaps in understanding between teams and stakeholders
Root Cause Rushed code, lack of testing, no refactoring Unclear goals, vague scope, poor communication
Visibility Measurable via code quality tools and reviews Often invisible until delays or dissatisfaction arise
Impact on Cost 33% loss in developer productivity (Stripe) Up to 60% increase in maintenance and rework (McKinsey)
Agile Risk Medium – usually technical in nature High – especially with distributed or nearshore teams
Cultural Sensitivity Low – mostly code-centric High – often caused by cultural or communication gaps
Prevention Strategy Refactoring, CI/CD, quality standards Frequent alignment sessions, shared backlog, agile onboarding

Real Example: When Misalignment Was Costlier Than Code

A U.S.-based healthtech company nearshoring to Latin America delivered multiple sprints on time and within budget—but friction grew.

The issue?

  • The development team built what the backlog described.
  • The stakeholders expected a production-ready MVP.
  • The client assumed weekly demos; the team delivered monthly updates.

The result: two sprints of rework and loss of trust—not due to technical errors, but due to misaligned expectations.

Related: How to Build Culturally Aligned Nearshore Teams That Actually Work

How Misalignment Increases Technical Debt Risks

Misaligned expectations don’t just create communication problems—they actively accelerate technical debt:

  • Developers build without full product context.
  • Features are rewritten multiple times to meet business needs.
  • Refactoring is skipped to meet misunderstood deadlines.

This loop creates what we call “compounding failure”:
→ Vague goals → Rushed features → Tech debt → Rework → Lower velocity → More misalignment.

How to Prevent Scope Misalignment in Agile Teams

Here are proven strategies for managing expectations with distributed teams and avoiding costly misalignment:

1. Clarify the Definition of «Done»

Ensure it includes design, testing, documentation, and stakeholder approval. A shared definition of done eliminates misunderstandings about the state of a task or feature.

2. Hold Frequent Expectation Check-ins

Especially with nearshore teams, use retrospectives and backlog grooming sessions to re-align priorities. Continuous communication ensures alignment stays intact.

3. Enable Cross-Border Collaboration Tools

Tools like Jira, Confluence, Loom, and Miro help bridge communication gaps across time zones and ensure documentation, visibility, and feedback loops.

4. Invest in Agile and Cultural Onboarding

Help your team understand the why, not just the what—especially in distributed environments. Business context and cultural fluency directly improve collaboration.

Related reading: Overcoming Challenges in Nearshore Development: Tips for Seamless Collaboration

Diagram comparing technical debt with misaligned team objectives in software development

What to Ask a Nearshore Partner Before You Start

Question
Why It Matters
How do you define project “success”? Ensures alignment on goals, scope, and delivery standards
How do you manage technical debt? Shows long-term engineering discipline
Do you onboard developers into our business? Prevents context gaps that lead to misaligned expectations
How are blockers and scope changes communicated? Maintains trust and prevents surprises
What agile frameworks and ceremonies do you use? Confirms process compatibility across teams and cultures

Related reading: Why Nearshore Software Development Makes More Sense Than Ever in 2025

Final Thoughts: Balancing Code and Clarity

So, is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

  • If you’re managing an internal agile team, technical debt may be your biggest challenge.
  • But if you’re scaling with distributed or nearshore partners, misaligned expectations can quietly cost more—in time, trust, and delivery quality.

The solution: Combine technical excellence with human alignment—and work with partners who understand both.

Looking for a Nearshore Team That Gets It Right?

Scio, a nearshore software development partner based in Mexico, helps U.S. companies in Austin, Dallas, and beyond build teams that deliver—technically and strategically.

  • English-fluent developers
  • Agile maturity and cultural alignment
  • Proactive communication and shared success metrics

Let’s talk about building a team that fits your goals

FAQ Section

Is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

It depends. Technical debt is visible and can be tracked, while misaligned expectations often remain hidden until delivery problems arise—especially in distributed teams.

How do misaligned expectations affect agile projects?

They cause rework, delays, scope creep, and stakeholder dissatisfaction. Agile depends on shared understanding—when that breaks, delivery quality drops.

What causes software project delays most often?

According to The Standish Group, unclear requirements and communication failures are top causes—more than technical execution.

How do you prevent misalignment in distributed teams?

Use shared collaboration tools, define «done» clearly, hold regular expectation check-ins, and provide both agile and cultural onboarding to all team members.

Your Dev Team Needs Coaching Skills 

Your Dev Team Needs Coaching Skills 

Written by: Yamila Solari

Software development team collaborating during a team meeting in an Agile work environment.

Nowadays, it’s not enough for software development teams to be technically brilliant, they also need to know how to learn, adapt, and grow together. As Co-founder of Scio and a certified organizational coach, I’ve seen firsthand how the right coaching skills can elevate an Agile team from simply functioning to truly thriving.

Let’s unpack why coaching skills are essential for every dev team, not just managers or Scrum Masters, and how to bring them into your day-to-day practice.

Why Coaching Belongs in Agile Teams

At its core, coaching is a way to help others learn or change. Unlike mentoring or directing, coaching relies on powerful questions, deep listening, and trust to spark self-discovery and action. That’s exactly the kind of dynamic learning we want inside Agile teams.

Agile teams work in environments of constant change and iteration, where new technologies, tools, and requirements emerge faster than most formal training programs can keep up. In this setting, the ability to teach each other, problem-solve collaboratively, and reflect as a team becomes critical.

Here are a few characteristics that make coaching especially relevant in Agile teams:

  • Cross-functionality: Everyone has a different specialty, and often, different viewpoints.
  • Self-organization: Teams are expected to take ownership, not wait for top-down direction.
  • Frequent feedback loops: Scrum ceremonies demand reflection and adaptation.
  • Psychological safety: Learning can’t happen without trust.

When team members are equipped with coaching skills, they’re more effective at giving and receiving feedback, challenging each other constructively, and making sure that learning sticks—without turning every mistake into a crisis.

What Coaching Skills Bring to the Table

Training team members in coaching techniques builds essential competencies that go far beyond people management:

  • Active listening – really hearing what’s said (and unsaid)
  • Powerful questioning – opening up thinking without prescribing
  • Building trust – essential for psychological safety
  • Giving and receiving feedback – candid, kind, and constructive
  • Following through on action plans – turning insights into impact
  • Supportively challenging teammates – helping others grow, not stay comfortable

These skills not only improve collaboration but support the Agile principles of transparency, inspection, and adaptation.

Puzzle pieces forming a white arrow pointing right on a yellow background.

Team-Led, Not Top-Down

While having an organization-wide coaching culture is ideal, that kind of transformation can take years and requires deep buy-in from senior leadership.

I want to make the case for a more accessible approach: let every team create their own coaching culture, with the support of a coach when needed. Agile teams are already empowered to self-organize, why not self-develop too?

By starting at the team level, you keep it practical, grounded, and tailored. Over time, these micro-cultures create a ripple effect throughout the organization.

A Road Map for Bringing Coaching into Your Team

You don’t need a full-blown organizational transformation to start cultivating a coaching culture in your team. However, you may need the sponsorship of a manager to get access to a team coach for training and support. Here’s a practical rollout plan:

1. Start with your Team Lead(s) and senior devs

Train your team lead(s) and senior devs first. They’ll model the skills in one-on-ones, the agile ceremonies, code reviews, and standups.

2. Then train the whole team by focusing on the Basics

Start small with three core skills:

  • Active listening
  • Powerful questions
  • The GROW coaching model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will)

3. Build It into Agile Practices

Coaching works best when it becomes part of how the team communicates, reflects, and improves every day.
Start by making small but meaningful adjustments to your existing Agile ceremonies:

  • Daily Scrum

Add one coaching-style question, for example: “What’s the small experiment you’ll try today?” This encourages learning through action and supports a growth mindset.

  • Backlog Refinement

Invite developers to coach the Product Owner on how stories could be sliced thinner or clarified. This creates shared ownership and teaches developers to ask thoughtful, outcome-focused questions.

  • Sprint Review

Help stakeholders structure their feedback using a coaching-inspired format:
Appreciation → Question → Suggestion.
It frames feedback constructively and invites dialogue instead of judgment.

  • Retrospective

Rotate the facilitator role so each team member gets to guide the session.
Use the GROW model to turn insights into real action. Over time, this develops leadership and coaching confidence across the team.

Additionally:

    • Add “ask before telling,” “coach, don’t criticize,” and “we give timely, kind, candid feedback” to your team working agreements.
    • Set aside time during the sprint for informal peer-coaching conversations and practice.
    • Host a monthly “coaching development series” where more nuanced knowledge about coaching can be discussed.

    By weaving coaching into the fabric of Agile, you make it feel natural and not like another task, but simply how the team works and grows.

    Person holding glowing icons representing knowledge, collaboration, and innovation in a tech environment.

    Final Thought

    We often talk about upskilling in tech—new frameworks, new languages, new stacks. But what if the biggest unlock for your team isn’t technical at all?

    Teaching coaching skills may be the smartest, most scalable way to build adaptability, trust, and sustainable high performance into your development teams.

    Start small. Start where you are.

    Further Reading

    The Leader as Coach – Harvard Business Review
    A compelling argument for why coaching is becoming the most effective form of leadership in fast-paced, knowledge-driven workplaces.

    The GROW Model
    A breakdown of one of the most popular coaching models used in organizations, perfect for Agile retrospectives, one-on-ones, and learning conversations.

    Psychological Safety – Amy Edmondson
    The foundational research article that introduced the concept of psychological safety—crucial for any team trying to implement a coaching mindset.

    Coaching Agile Teams – Lyssa Adkins
    A must-read book for Agile coaches and leaders, exploring how to blend Agile principles with coaching stances to help teams mature.

    Yamila Solari

    Yamila Solari

    General Manager

    From Global to Regional: How De-Globalization is Reshaping Software Development 

    From Global to Regional: How De-Globalization is Reshaping Software Development 

    Written by Luis Aburto- 

    Hands interacting with a digital world map representing the shift from global to regional software development.

    For decades, global software development followed a simple logic: find the best talent at the lowest cost, no matter where in the world it lives. Time zones were managed, cultural gaps were bridged, and the software kept shipping. But as the global order shifts, that formula is being challenged, and so is the assumption that software delivery is immune to geopolitics.

    In 2022, many companies with teams in Ukraine saw their operations halted overnight. U.S. export controls are increasingly restricting access to critical cloud and AI infrastructure in China. Attacks on undersea cables have exposed vulnerabilities in global internet connectivity. And more countries are tightening control over data, digital talent, and software supply chains.

    In 2025, the conversation around globalization has intensified. Recent point to a growing consensus among economists and business leaders: the era of hyper-globalized trade and supply chains is being restructured. Rising tariffs, geopolitical realignment, and regional trade blocs are accelerating a shift toward localization and strategic decoupling.

    What do these events have in common? They signal the arrival of a new era, one where global integration is no longer a given, and where resilience in software development must be earned, not assumed.

    The Shift: From Globalization to Fragmentation 

    We are not witnessing the end of globalization, but rather its transformation. The model of deep, frictionless global integration that defined much of the past three decades is giving way to a more fragmented, controlled, and regional system. Instead of chasing the lowest cost globally, many companies are prioritizing stability, alignment, and resilience within trusted regions. 

    This shift is reflected in the rhetoric and actions of governments and business leaders alike. As international institutions weaken and trade tensions rise, companies are being pushed to reevaluate the vulnerabilities built into their global operations. Strategic decoupling, whether intentional or reactive, is now part of mainstream decision-making for many organizations. 

    Key drivers of this shift include:

    • Geopolitical tensions and the formation of new regional blocs, as countries seek to reduce dependence on politically unstable or adversarial trading partners
      Economic nationalism and policies favoring domestic or allied suppliers, including tariffs, reshoring incentives, and export restrictions.
    • Cybersecurity risks heightened by nation-state actors, infrastructure sabotage, and the weaponization of digital supply chains
      Regulatory pressure around data localization, intellectual property protections, and labor compliance, which can vary widely across jurisdictions 

    In this environment, global operations are being restructured not simply for efficiency or cost savings, but for strategic resilience, a foundational requirement for long-term continuity and competitiveness.

    Scio focuses on secure, resilient software development in response to global fragmentation and cybersecurity challenges.

    Why Software Development Is Affected 

    While physical supply chains have received much of the attention in discussions about de-globalization, distributed software development is also highly susceptible to geopolitical disruptions, often in ways that are less visible but equally consequential.

    • A conflict, regulatory crackdown, or even targeted sabotage, such as damage to undersea fiber optic cables or critical digital infrastructure, can cut off access to talent or tooling, particularly if a development hub becomes inaccessible or politically unstable overnight. These infrastructure vulnerabilities add an additional layer of risk, as companies often depend on a handful of chokepoints for their global communications and cloud-based tools.
    • Sanctions can interrupt payment channels or cloud service agreements, stranding teams mid-project or forcing abrupt transitions to alternative infrastructure.
    • Engineering teams working across conflicting legal frameworks may face compliance or IP protection risks, as differing data residency laws or intellectual property rights create exposure.
    • Developers may lose access to global platforms like GitHub, Docker Hub, or AWS services, or be forced to rely on unstable VPNs or workarounds that slow productivity and introduce security risks.
    • Political unrest or changes in labor law may create sudden hiring or retention challenges, undermining team continuity and morale.
      Increased scrutiny from investors and enterprise clients means companies must now prove the operational resilience of their distributed teams as part of vendor risk evaluations. 

    These risks may not be visible on a Jira board or in a sprint retrospective, but they are real, and they can derail product timelines, introduce hidden costs, compromise data integrity, or weaken overall software quality if not proactively identified and managed.

    Rethinking Sourcing Strategy: Risk-Aware Engineering 

    To adapt, technology leaders are shifting their sourcing mindset from cost-driven to risk-aware. That doesn’t mean abandoning global talent, but it does mean being far more intentional about where, how, and with whom your engineering work is delivered. 

    This shift involves a more holistic view of software talent sourcing, one that accounts for not just operational capabilities, but geopolitical alignment, digital infrastructure stability, and long-term viability. It also recognizes that sourcing strategies are no longer static. In a volatile world, resilience demands agility and the ability to reconfigure delivery models when needed.

    Here’s what that shift looks like:

    • Evaluating not just the capabilities of a vendor and their people, but their geographic and geopolitical profile, including political stability, trade relations, and cybersecurity maturity.
      Avoiding overconcentration of critical functions in one region or firm by building geographic diversity into your engineering footprint.
    • Prioritizing alignment with stable, accessible, and politically compatible locations that reduce legal, regulatory, and operational friction.
    • Building optionality into team structures, with flexible paths to rebalance, scale, or transition work depending on emerging risks or strategic shifts.
    • Partnering with vendors that demonstrate transparency, robust identity verification practices, and ethical hiring standards to avoid risks such as misrepresentation or fraud.
    • Incorporating resilience metrics into vendor evaluations, ensuring your outsourcing partners have contingency plans and recovery protocols in place.

    The goal is not to eliminate risk altogether, an impossible task, but to anticipate, distribute, and manage risk in a way that protects both continuity and innovation.

    Scio evaluates strategic software sourcing through a geopolitical lens, emphasizing risk-aware engineering decisions.

    Nearshoring: A Strategic Middle Path

    In this context of economic and geopolitical uncertainty, nearshore outsourcing becomes even more strategic. Nearshoring offers a hedge against geopolitical disruption by keeping operations closer to home and within more stable economic zones. At the same time, it enables companies to achieve cost efficiencies and tap into scalable talent pools, without incurring the long-term liabilities and rigidity of direct, in-house hiring. This combination is particularly valuable in uncertain times, offering companies the ability to stay agile, control labor costs, and accelerate execution while minimizing exposure. 

    For U.S.-based companies, nearshoring, particularly to Mexico and Latin America, is a compelling alternative. In addition to cost and productivity efficiencies, it offers a blend of: 

    • Political Stability and Predictability: Mexico and key Latin American countries offer relatively stable political environments, reducing the risk of disruptive events compared to more volatile outsourcing regions.
      Robust Regulatory and Legal
    • Frameworks: The USMCA agreement ensures clear and consistent regulatory frameworks between the US and Mexico, offering predictable rules for data protection, intellectual property rights, labor laws, and cross-border commerce.
    • Aligned Economic Interests and Strong Diplomatic Relations: Mexico and the United States share tightly integrated economies. These economic ties minimize the risks of disruptive trade sanctions, tariffs, or restrictive economic policies that have impacted other regions.
    • Robust Bilateral Security Cooperation: Mexico coordinates closely with the U.S. on security, intelligence, and regional stability, helping reduce geopolitical risks in the region.
    • Reduced Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: Proximity reduces reliance on vulnerable undersea cables. Mexico has robust, direct connections to U.S. networks, lowering the risk of major connectivity disruptions.
    • Lower Cybersecurity Threat Exposure: Politically aligned countries tend to pose fewer cybersecurity risks. Nearshoring within North America under USMCA offers greater transparency and lowers the chance of state-backed cyber threats.
    • Talent Integrity and Verification: Mexico and most major countries in Latin America have mature educational systems, established professional standards, and extensive verification infrastructures. This helps minimize risks related to talent fraud, misrepresentation, and credential falsification common in less regulated outsourcing markets.
    • Ease of Geographical Diversification and Redundancy: Many nearshore vendors maintain multiple operational centers across Mexico and other countries in Latin America. This geographical diversity enables seamless continuity and rapid failover in case of localized disruptions, further enhancing resilience.
    • Ease of travel and face-to-face collaboration, enabling in-person visits with minimal logistical risk compared to long-haul or politically sensitive destinations, especially valuable for relationship building, onboarding, and team alignment.
    • Closer proximity to key stakeholders and decision-makers, which enables more responsive collaboration and deeper alignment between technical execution and business priorities. 

    This model doesn’t just mitigate risk, it often accelerates productivity and integration, thanks to smoother communication, greater cultural fit, improved responsiveness, and a more resilient and adaptable operational setup.

    Scio team collaborating over a digital world map, representing strategic nearshoring opportunities in Mexico and Latin America

    The Bottom Line: Global Isn’t Dead, It’s Evolving 

    Global software development isn’t going away, but the rules are changing. The companies that thrive in this new era will be those that treat resilience as a priority, not an afterthought. In this environment, companies must evolve from reactive adaptation to proactive strategy, embedding resilience into their sourcing, operations, and partnerships. 

    That means regularly auditing your current engineering footprint not just for efficiency, but for exposure and fragility. It means rethinking where your teams are located, how easily they can collaborate, and what contingencies exist for business continuity if disruption occurs. 

    And perhaps most importantly, it means partnering with organizations that understand how to build reliable, distributed capabilities in an increasingly unpredictable world, partners who offer not only talent, but infrastructure, cultural alignment, transparency, and adaptability. 

    In this next chapter of global software development, success will go to those who treat resilience as a strategic asset, not an operational afterthought.

    Luis Aburto_ CEO_Scio

    Luis Aburto

    CEO