What is a growth mindset truly about? 4 myths that you should avoid

What is a growth mindset truly about? 4 myths that you should avoid

Written by: Scio Team 
Business professional reviewing Agile methodology dashboard while choosing a Lean Product Development partner

Introduction

In software development, the difference between a team that stagnates and one that scales often comes down to mindset. CTOs and VPs of Engineering in hubs like Austin, Dallas, and Silicon Valley know this well: technologies evolve, markets shift, and the pressure to deliver innovation never slows down. This is where the growth mindset comes in. Popularized in education and psychology, it’s now a critical concept for software teams. But despite its popularity, the term is often misunderstood. Let’s clarify what a growth mindset really means for software leaders and explore the myths that can derail your teams if left unchecked.

Why Growth Mindset Matters for U.S. Software Teams

For U.S.-based technology companies, having developers with a growth mindset means more than just a positive attitude—it translates into resilience, adaptability, and faster adoption of new tools and practices. Take, for example, distributed or nearshore teams. Leaders in Austin working with developers in Mexico often highlight how a growth mindset culture reduces friction, accelerates onboarding, and creates an environment where challenges become stepping stones rather than roadblocks. In today’s market—whether you’re scaling SaaS products, integrating AI-driven features, or managing compliance-heavy systems—a growth mindset in your development team is not a “nice to have.” It’s strategic.
Growth mindset in software engineering — continuous learning, feedback and collaboration.
A growth mindset helps developers expand skills, collaborate better, and adapt to new technologies.
And a lot has changed in the software development field over the years. New languages, frameworks, and development practices mean that it’s more important than ever to develop a well-rounded skill set. To become a truly effective software developer, you need to be able to work in a variety of environments and be comfortable with a range of technologies. You also need to have a strong foundation in the basics, including principles of software design, data structures, and algorithms. And finally, it’s important to be able to communicate effectively with other team members, whether it’s working with architects to design a system or collaborating on code reviews. A growth mindset is the best strategy to do so, helping you stretch into other important areas (like teamwork, communication, or leadership) outside of your normal interests. However, getting into a growth mindset is not an easy task. And it isn’t because accomplishing this is singularly hard or demanding, but because there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about what a growth mindset is, or how to effectively harness this way of thinking to become a better developer. So, what are some of the myths about developing a growth mindset, and how to avoid falling into them?

Myth 1: It’s an intrinsic quality to have

We see this kind of thinking all the time, from the “there are two kinds of people in the world” type of mentality, to the idea that natural talent or ability is the most important quality to have (and bad luck to anyone born without it). However, when it comes to a growth mindset, this idea is harmful and simply not true.  After all, a person with a true growth mindset believes that intelligence and talent are not fixed traits; everyone can grow and improve with the necessary effort, and that every challenge is an opportunity to grow. So why isn’t everyone running around with a growth mindset? Well, because a fixed mindset, or the belief that intelligence and talent are fixed traits that cannot be changed, is still very prevalent, and even the default in our current society. This mentality leads people to give up easily, believing that they cannot improve, simply because they are afraid of failing. However, with the right tools and environment, anyone can learn to grow, stop fearing the failures that are necessary to evolve, and better themselves in areas of skill that they thought impossible before.

Myth 2: It’s all about being positive

Being «positive» is often touted as the key to success in life, an antidote of sorts for all kinds of problems, from personal relationships to financial success. Generally, the thinking goes that if you stay positive, good things will happen to you. Although starting with a positive attitude certainly helps, this is not the most important element of a true growth mindset. A growth mindset is about taking risks, learning from failure, and always striving to improve.  In fact, «positive thinking» can be a form of self-deception that can prevent people from achieving their full potential; being successful in any area requires the willingness to face your limitations, recognize them, and make an effort to improve. By pretending that everything is always rosy, people with an uncritically positive outlook may avoid taking risks and miss out on growth opportunities. So, if you want to achieve real growth, you need to have a positive attitude toward failure and a willingness to take risks. Only then will you be able to reach your full potential.
Chess piece symbolizing strategy and growth mindset in software development challenges
A growth mindset in software development helps teams face challenges and improve performance.

Myth 3: A growth mindset guarantees positive results

One of the key elements of a growth mindset is the willingness to take on risks and challenges. Learning and improving on areas we never considered before requires effort, the willingness to hear criticisms and feedback, and committing time and resources to achieve it. But most importantly, anyone who wishes to get into a growth mindset needs to understand that failure is always an option and that a growth mindset does not guarantee positive outcomes all of the time. Instead, it is simply one tool that can help achieve goals.  What matters is how we deal with these challenges and setbacks. If we allow them to defeat us, then our growth mindset won’t matter. But if we use them as opportunities to learn and grow, then we can overcome anything. So yes, a growth mindset is important, but it’s not a silver bullet. It won’t magically make everything better. But it will give us the strength to keep going when times are tough, helping us see failure as a normal part of the learning process, and letting us get ready for the next challenge. As one might say, “you are either learning or winning”.

Myth 4: Absolutely everything is possible

As the saying goes, a “jack-of-all-trades is a master of none”, and the notion that anyone can be an expert at everything is misguided and can set unrealistic expectations when it comes to getting a growth mindset. The core tenet here is that you can develop any skill you want if you put effort into it, and that people in general don’t exist in a static state that is impossible to change. If, as a developer, you want to have skills that go beyond pure technical know-how, like leadership, teamwork, negotiation, or public speaking because you want to become more well-rounded. It could open up opportunities for you and there are techniques and strategies you can try to be more proficient at.  But don’t develop unrealistic expectations about it. If we believe that we should be able to do everything expertly, we’re bound to feel like failures when we inevitably fall short. An average person has affinities and weak spots in different areas, which is fine and normal. This should neither stop you from trying new things nor make you believe that you need to be the best at everything you attempt. What’s more, this belief devalues expertise. If everyone is supposedly an expert, then what’s the point of learning from those who have spent their lives honing a particular skill? Instead of trying to be good at everything, we would be better off accepting that we have our limits and that there are some things we’re simply not cut out for and focusing on becoming the best at what we’re interested in. Only then can we truly excel.

Growth Mindset vs Fixed Mindset in Software Teams

Growth Mindset vs Fixed Mindset — Key Dimensions for Software Teams
Dimension
Growth Mindset
Fixed Mindset
Learning Sees mistakes as feedback for improvement Avoids challenges for fear of failure
Collaboration Values feedback and peer reviews Sees feedback as criticism
Innovation Experiments with new tech stacks Sticks only to what already knows
Adaptability Thrives in nearshore and hybrid models Struggles outside comfort zone

How Leaders in Austin and Dallas Apply Growth Mindset

Local tech leaders know that a growth mindset is not just theory—it’s a competitive advantage.

  • Austin startups: invest in continuous learning, sponsoring certifications and training in emerging frameworks.
  • Dallas enterprises: strengthen collaboration by pairing senior engineers with nearshore juniors, creating mentorship loops that benefit both sides.
  • Silicon Valley companies: normalize failure as part of innovation, rewarding teams not only for wins but also for documenting lessons that improve delivery speed.

This approach demonstrates that adopting a growth mindset is not only about individual improvement—it’s about how entire teams adapt, collaborate, and sustain growth across distributed models.

Hand placing wooden blocks with lightbulb icons, symbolizing innovation and growth mindset in software development
Visual representation of growth mindset and continuous learning in software development.

Key Takeaways

  • Growth mindset ≠ positivity only — it’s about resilience, risk-taking, and learning from feedback.
  • Failure is feedback, not the end — the best U.S. tech teams see mistakes as data to improve.
  • Not everything is possible — realistic expectations prevent burnout and value real expertise.
  • Leaders in Austin & Dallas apply it daily — through mentorship, certifications, and cultural alignment with nearshore teams.
  • For U.S. companies, mindset is strategic — it impacts delivery speed, team morale, and long-term innovation.

Final Thoughts: Why It Matters Now

At its core, acquiring a growth mindset should benefit you personally. It’s about believing in your ability to learn, improve, and become a better developer—and a better leader. The payoff? Increased motivation, resilience, and a stronger capacity to see challenges as opportunities instead of setbacks.

But for U.S. tech leaders in Austin, Dallas, and beyond, the stakes are even higher. In today’s competitive market, a growth mindset directly impacts delivery speed, team morale, and innovation. When combined with the right cultural alignment—like what nearshore teams in Mexico can offer—it becomes a driver for real business outcomes.

Let’s talk about nearshoring. At Scio, we’ve been building and mentoring software teams since 2003, helping CTOs and VPs of Engineering create high-performing squads that don’t just code—they adapt, grow, and scale alongside your business.

FAQs About Growth Mindset in Software Teams

Q1: Does a growth mindset really improve developer performance?

Yes. Studies show growth mindset teams adapt faster, handle feedback better, and innovate more effectively.

Q2: How can U.S. companies foster growth mindset in nearshore teams?

By encouraging mentorship, continuous learning, and cross-border collaboration in distributed teams.

Q3: Is growth mindset the same as optimism?

Not quite. It’s about resilience and adaptability, not blind positivity.

Q4: Can developers shift from fixed to growth mindset?

Absolutely — with the right leadership and culture, developers can change how they approach feedback and challenges.

Q5: Why is growth mindset critical for Austin or Dallas tech leaders?

Because adaptability and cultural alignment directly impact delivery speed, product quality, and innovation.

Suggested Resources for Further Reading

To explore more about how mindset and methodology shape software success, here are some recommended resources:

Internal Links

Discover how Latin American nearshore teams align culturally with U.S. companies and why this cultural fit drives stronger outcomes. Read more.

Compare Traditional vs Agile software development methods and see which approach best supports your product strategy. Learn more.

External Links

Harvard Business Review – What Having a Growth Mindset Actually Means: A must-read analysis of how this concept is often misunderstood inside organizations.

McKinsey – Achieving Growth: Putting Leadership Mindsets into Action: Practical insights on how leaders turn growth mindset into behaviors that accelerate business outcomes.

McKinsey – How Top Performers Drive Innovation and Growth: Research on how leading companies foster innovative mindsets to expand within and beyond their core business.

5 Questions to Ask – Does Your Software Dev Partner (Really) Know LPD?

5 Questions to Ask – Does Your Software Dev Partner (Really) Know LPD?

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Business professional reviewing Agile methodology dashboard while choosing a Lean Product Development partner

Does Your Software Dev Partner (Really) Know LPD?

Lean Product Development (or Design), or LPD, is quickly becoming a go-to methodology in modern software development—just like Agile, Scrum, or Lean once did. But as with most “standards,” claiming to follow LPD doesn’t always mean true alignment. And that becomes a real challenge when your internal product team works with LPD principles, but your outsourced development partner… doesn’t.

For U.S.-based product teams—especially in fast-moving tech hubs like Austin, Dallas, or the Bay Area—choosing the right development partner isn’t just about technical skills; it’s about process alignment and shared product thinking. LPD requires close collaboration, rapid feedback loops, and a deep understanding of how to build and validate digital products under uncertainty.

If you’ve already invested in a structured, repeatable approach to launching software, partnering with a vendor who lacks that same mindset can lead to unnecessary friction, slower sprints, and poor outcomes. This is especially critical for tech companies offering SaaS platforms or building custom applications, where full integration between in-house and outsourced teams is essential.

So how do you make sure your software development partner really understands Lean Product Development—and knows how to apply it to your context?

If you’re wondering how to choose a Lean Product Development partner that truly aligns with your process, these 5 questions will help you find the right fit.

What is Lean Product Development (in practice)?

Lean Product Development stems from Lean manufacturing but has been adapted to digital environments—particularly software. While sometimes used interchangeably with “Lean Product Design,” there are subtle differences:

Comparison between Lean Product Design and Lean Product Development
Focus Area
Lean Product Design
Lean Product Development
Core Objective UI/UX clarity and user journey Features that satisfy user needs
Approach Visual, wireframes, interface-first Iterative, feedback-driven development
Suitable For Visual-heavy or ambiguous projects Process-driven or informed stakeholders
Common Methodologies Kanban, Design Thinking Agile, Scrum, XP
Both approaches lean on Agile principles but differ in entry points. Choosing a dev partner who can flexibly adapt between the two is essential.
Close-up of a professional planning product features on a Kanban board as part of choosing a Lean Product Development partner
Feature planning on a Kanban board — a key step when working with a Lean Product Development partner.

A Little Level-Setting

While “Lean Product Development” and “Lean Product Design” are often used interchangeably, both draw from the same roots—Lean manufacturing principles popularized by Toyota—and are heavily influenced by the Lean Startup methodology. The key difference lies in focus: design leans into the UI and user experience, while development emphasizes iterative delivery of working features aligned to user needs and business value.

Today, LPD is widely used by enterprises and SaaS companies alike, especially in software environments where Agile, Scrum, and Kanban are integrated into the development workflow. A good partner should know how to flex across these methodologies depending on your team’s strengths, stakeholders, and product maturity.

So, What Does This Mean?

There are many software applications that embody process and principles from a software product management point of view. How will they work for you if you decide to use an outsourced software development partner to help bring your application to market? Is one or the other better for software applications or integrating with software development teams? Are there methodologies or points to emphasize with potential partners as you discuss how their product development approach and experience?

From a high level, if your potential vendor has good product development experience and understands the product development cycle fully, the software you use for product management and the implementation of agile they use within their software development process shouldn’t matter a great deal – because they should be able to be flexible and do what is necessary to integrate the teams. If they are using something out of a book or a seminar that they have actually practiced a few times with a client – and that client wasn’t themselves fully committed to formal product management – it will be a distracting challenge for both teams to work through a methodology implementation while developing your application.

5 Key Questions to Ask Your Lean Product Development Partner

Let’s start with a few questions to discuss. And a word about interviews: Don’t ask yes or no questions when you are investigating how a vendor operates and works with clients. Instead, ask open-ended questions that should be answered with more than a few words (if they actually have experience and formal services around the area they are discussing). If you don’t get what you feel is a strong answer, again, ask some open-ended questions that go down a level in detail.

1. Tell me about how you use agile in projects with clients practicing Lean Product Development?

The question here is not «do you use agile?» You need to know how agile informs their work with companies practicing LPD and what value they believe their implementation brings their customers. They should also include their practices within agile, such as scrum, extreme programming (XP), or kanban. If they don’t go into this level, ask another open-ended question for more detail.

In most cases, scrum will be the task management and basic development guideline, but it may be extended by XP practices. Some teams will be familiar with kanban and some will mention that they might start with scrum and transition to kanban if the project uses a DevOps implementation aimed at continuous development. At a high-level, the choice between scrum and kanban comes down to a philosophy about work and how to manage tasks. Scrum is generally considered to be more structured, using time-boxed iterations (sprints) and depending on the team to properly estimate tasks for each sprint and with specific planning and retrospective sessions for managing task backlog and priorities. Kanban tends to limit the number of tasks a team can have in work at the same time and new tasks are pulled down into development as soon as a slot opens up in the queue. Kanban is generally more flexible for the insertion of new features and less structured, requiring more feature management to avoid creep before the base application is completed.

It is only a guideline, but most teams find scrum to be a good system in application development and might use kanban or a variation after full release when the application is in maintenance or continuous development. Again, team familiarity and experience in adjusting their «standard» implementation to your team is more important than the particular flavor of the methodology they are using. Process mockups and walkthroughs of feature and feedback flow between the teams is an excellent way to evaluate how things might work and adjust to situations.

Wooden blocks showing MVP acronym for Minimum Viable Product, representing the MVP process in Lean Product Development
MVP — Minimum Viable Product — a core step in Lean Product Development to validate ideas quickly.

2. How do you understand the MVP process in lean product development?

Iterative development of a minimum viable product (MVP) is critical in LPD and probably one of the least understood parts of the cycle by non-practitioners. It is also very hard to estimate effort and time for the development team because it involves an open-ended process with key stakeholders and users. The key issue is to understand what they expect and how they will help you towards viable iterations for validation.

If their understanding is more like the top example in this illustration than the second, it is going to require some real thought to ensure you arrive at validation releases that are fully-formed (loveable) but not feature-rich or too simplistic. This is an element of your work as a whole team where you can really assess the ability of your outsourced team to work fully as a partner in product development. Can they come up with creative ways to give a good representation of the core product to users with less effort and time? Can they see the evolution of ideas and pick out key elements in customer feedback? If you expect or have to micro-manage every iteration yourself, you’re not getting a fully-prepared software development team.

3. How will we capture and manage user feedback during validation and following initial release?

Now, of course – a developer could just say, «This is your problem, not mine.» To a degree, they would be right, but you are looking for partner-level answers that indicate a willingness to do whatever is needed to make the product development process work properly and to be in position for the long run if your product is likely to benefit from a continuous development/improvement, DevOps-type release. Possible answers can be all over the board from add-on services that support help desk and application feedback to in-app custom modules. At a minimum, developers should be «in the loop» during validation and early release to assure that application bugs are not being reported as feature requests or issues and a system should be available to allow users to see proposed changes and «vote up or down» features they would value.

Including the development team in the feedback loop has a cost, but it avoids a lot of thrash when a feature is not working as expected, allows the developers to be proactive with corrective actions and to understand needs directly from a user’s words, rather than summaries. Again, what you are looking for is not a specific answer but that your partner is willing and able to understand what you need from a product perspective and provide creative solutions.

4. What are our options for capturing user metrics?

This requirement is, of course, very similar to capturing user feedback, so solutions can range from custom reporting within the application to third-party services and application libraries. In this case, the richness of options is key so you can evaluate different aspects of customer acquisition, feature usage, time to complete a process, etc. These features don’t exist in «average» applications, but they can be added relatively easily during development, especially if you compare the effort required to add them at some later point. You will have to get into detail about the kinds of metrics you feel might be most useful for your application and situation, but a strong developer team should be able to give you a range of options for implementation and some sort of dashboard for generating reports.

Laptop screen showing ISO quality assurance icons, symbolizing quality control in Lean Product Development projects
Quality assurance and ISO standards are essential to avoid delays in Lean Product Development.

5. What do you do to assure that quality issues don’t get in the way?

It may seem a bit off point to discuss quality in an LPD focused question set, but the quality is far and away one of the biggest issues when it comes to unexpected project delays. You can’t expect stakeholders and users to be fully engaged in the product development process if planned releases are delayed or major features don’t appear fully formed as promised. A really good application that is unstable or has a poorly designed user interface is a big distraction from the goals of LPD project.

The best answers to this question include test-driven development, test automation, continuous integration and the tools that could eventually come into play if you choose to go into continuous development. The best case is to make this decision upfront, but things don’t always work out that way. Your primary aim should be to ensure you are in a position to move to that level when you need to without backtracking or having less than full test coverage and to leverage quality assurance tools and processes proactively from the beginning. Your team should be able to focus on feature execution and user experience as they do their acceptance and not buggy code or user interface inconsistencies.

The answers to this question should cover many of the issues of how teams will work and communicate. If they don’t, push follow-up questions in that direction specifically. If you have read anything about outsourcing, you already know that successful agile teams require strong open dialog and collaboration. Don’t let easy answers push you off this point. Understand fully how your project will deal with quality, communication, and ownership of the project goals.

There are a lot more questions you could ask, but these should get you started. The point is to have a conversation with your prospective vendor and come to an understanding of the methodologies they have utilized, the capabilities they bring to the table, and the customer experience you can expect. A conversation can clear up a lot more issues than a written response to an RFI or a proposal for work and give you a better idea if this is a group you can see your team working with. If you are actually looking for a long term partner and not just a team for a short engagement, it would be wise to have that conversation in person – in your offices or theirs. If it requires some travel, it is just part of the expense of finding a good match. It is much better to have your first face-to-face meetings in a positive, forward-looking atmosphere than when a project is underway and you’ve realized that a lot needs to be done to iron out issues.

Ready to Choose Your Lean Product Development Partner?

A true Lean Product Development partner doesn’t just code. They think like product people, adapt to your processes, and help accelerate value delivery without compromising quality.

At Scio, we’ve helped U.S.-based companies build, launch, and evolve products using Lean principles for over 20 years. Whether you’re in Austin, Dallas, or anywhere across North America—we can help your dev team scale smarter.

Let’s talk about nearshoring and how we can support your Lean journey.

FAQs

What’s the difference between Lean Product Design and Development?

Design focuses on UI/UX, while Development focuses on feature iteration aligned with business goals. Both follow Lean principles but differ in execution.

Is Agile the same as Lean?

Not exactly. Agile is a delivery method; Lean is a mindset. They’re often used together but serve different purposes.

Why choose a nearshore partner for LPD?

Timezone alignment, cultural fit, and communication ease make nearshore partners ideal for fast feedback loops and continuous delivery—key to Lean success.

Better Interviews, Smarter Augmentation: Reducing Interview Risks When Outsourcing to LatAm Partners 

Better Interviews, Smarter Augmentation: Reducing Interview Risks When Outsourcing to LatAm Partners 

By Rod Aburto
Smiling candidate during a nearshore technical interview, representing staff augmentation from Latin America

Introduction

When you’re a Software Development Manager trying to grow a team, interviews are your last line of defense—and often your first real contact with a developer your outsourcing partner claims is “a perfect fit.” But too often, that fit falls apart the moment the Zoom call starts.

Over my years helping US-based teams scale with nearshore engineers from Latin America, I’ve heard the same concerns time and again:

  • “The resume looked great, but the candidate couldn’t explain their past work.”
  • “We had a hard time understanding each other.”
  • “They said they were Agile, but couldn’t describe a sprint.”
  • “This feels like body shopping.”

These are outsourcing concerns that go far beyond technology—they’re about trust, alignment, and interview quality. And they’re absolutely valid.

So how do we fix it?

In this post, I want to share the perspective I’ve gained at Scio Consulting working with companies who expect more than warm bodies. I’ll cover:

  • The core risks managers face when interviewing external candidates
  • Why staff augmentation from LatAm has unique advantages—and challenges
  • What better interviews look like
  • And how a trusted partner can dramatically reduce your risk

The Problem with Interviews in Staff Augmentation

Let’s get one thing out of the way: interviews are already hard. You’re juggling schedules, context-switching out of your sprint, and trying to assess someone’s ability to write clean code, communicate clearly, and be a positive force on your team—all in 45 minutes.
Now layer on:

  • Cultural or language mismatches
  • Unclear expectations about the role
  • External recruiters who barely understand your product
  • Inflated resumes or coached responses
  • Vendors who disappear after sending over candidates

It’s no wonder so many Software Development Managers tell me they’ve “been burned” by augmentation before.

In short, the outsourcing concern here is calibration. Are we speaking the same language? Are we aligned on expectations? Are you trying to make a commission, or do you care if this person thrives on my team?

Single standout block among many, symbolizing the importance of identifying the right developer in nearshore interviews
Effective interviews help distinguish the right candidate—not just a good résumé.

Why Interviews with Nearshore Teams Require a Different Approach

In theory, staff augmentation in LatAm solves many pain points:

  • Time zone alignment
  • Lower costs than US-based engineers
  • Cultural overlap and strong English proficiency
  • Faster ramp-up times

But in practice, those benefits only come after you’ve found and validated the right people.

And validation starts with—you guessed it—interviews.

That’s where many vendors drop the ball. They treat interviews as the client’s job alone, offering up semi-qualified candidates, crossing their fingers, and moving on to the next request if it doesn’t work out.

But this model creates interview fatigue, wastes time, and damages trust. You don’t want 10 “maybes.” You want 2 “hell yes” candidates.

What “Better Interviews” Actually Mean

If I had to define what “better interviews” look like in the context of nearshore staff augmentation from LatAm, it would be this:

A better interview is a conversation between a well-prepared client and a highly-aligned candidate, facilitated by a partner who’s done their homework.

Let’s break that down.

1. Better interviews start before the interview

A trusted partner doesn’t just toss resumes over the fence. They:

  • Take time to understand your tech stack and team dynamics
  • Align on what success looks like for the role
  • Conduct internal pre-interviews with behavioral and technical checkpoints
  • Involve currently assigned team members in the screening
  • Filter out candidates who aren’t a real fit—before you ever see them

At Scio, we often say we “interview for you, not just with you.” That means using your values, your stack, your expectations—not just a generic checklist.

2. Candidates are calibrated, not coached

Some vendors train candidates to “get through” your interview. We calibrate them so they can connect with your team. That means:

  • Helping them understand your product
  • Providing context on your engineering culture
  • Practicing communication in English
  • Making sure they can explain their experience clearly and honestly

This isn’t hand-holding—it’s leveling the playing field so the interview is about fit, not miscommunication.

3. There’s accountability after the call

Here’s a secret: a good partner wants your feedback, even when it’s negative.

If a candidate misses the mark, we want to know:

  • Where did the interview go off-track?
  • Was it a skill mismatch or a soft skill issue?
  • How can we improve the next match?

We treat every interview as a feedback loop, not a transaction.

Laptop screen with profile icons and checkmarks, symbolizing interview screening and candidate selection in nearshore outsourcing
At Scio, we treat interviews as a discovery process—not just a filter.

How Scio Minimizes Interview Risks for US Clients

When I work with our client partners, we do a lot of things differently. Here’s how Scio tackles interview-related outsourcing concerns:

Deep Discovery & Role Definition

Before we ever share a CV, we spend time with the hiring manager understanding

  • Must-have vs nice-to-have skills
  • Day-to-day responsibilities
  • Team structure and rituals
  • Communication style and collaboration norms

This means we don’t waste your time with “maybe” candidates.

Developer Calibration Program

Every developer we propose goes through:

  • English fluency screening
  • Behavioral interviews focused on problem-solving and proactivity
  • Technical evaluations mapped to your tech stack

This helps ensure they’re interview-ready—and team-ready.

Post-Interview Follow-Up

We schedule debriefs after each interview to understand:

  • What worked
  • What didn’t
  • What to adjust

It’s not about pushing candidates—it’s about building trust.

The “Trusted Partner” Difference

When I hear managers say, “This candidate felt different,” it’s not just about skills. It’s because the whole process felt different.

They weren’t wasting time sifting through noise.
They weren’t struggling to connect over Zoom.
They weren’t doing the vendor’s job for them.

They were working with a trusted partner who brought them ready-to-interview developers—not just names in a database.

That’s what makes staff augmentation in LatAm work long-term. Not just lower costs. Not just shared time zones. But shared standards, ownership, and care.

Final Thoughts: It’s Not Just the Interview. It’s the Intent.

If you’re augmenting your team from Latin America—or anywhere—the interview is your moment of truth. Don’t let it be your biggest risk.

A better partner will give you:

  • Fewer but stronger candidates
  • Insight, not guesswork
  • A process that gets better over time
  • And developers who shine in interviews because they’re the real deal

At Scio, we don’t just want to make interviews easier. We want to make them meaningful—the start of a relationship, not a gamble.

Because when interviews go right, everything that follows gets better too.

Want to Learn More?

If you’re facing outsourcing concerns and want to work with a trusted partner focused on better interviews and high-performing staff augmentation in LatAm, let’s connect.

We’d love to show you what a better process—and a better partnership—really looks like.

Rod Aburto

Rod Aburto

Nearshore Staffing Expert

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
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
Why Planning Still Matters (Even If Plans Don’t) 

Why Planning Still Matters (Even If Plans Don’t) 

By: Adolfo Cruz

Why Planning Still Matters (Even If Plans Don’t)

Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

Introduction: Plans Change. Planning Prepares You for It.

In software projects, unpredictability isn’t the exception — it’s the rule. Features change, team members shift, and priorities evolve. In the face of so much flux, the act of planning becomes essential.

While the plan itself might not survive contact with reality, the process of planning equips teams to navigate that reality with clarity and confidence. Let’s explore the modern approaches to estimating and planning that embrace uncertainty while helping teams move forward with purpose.

Planning Is Not a One-Time Event

Gone are the days of creating a project plan once and hoping for the best. Today’s planning is continuous. Teams revisit their plans frequently, adjusting based on progress, blockers, and new information.

Think of it like updating your route during a road trip. The destination may stay the same, but road closures, traffic, or weather might send you on a better path.

Approaches like rolling wave planning and frequent reforecasting let teams adapt with agility while keeping everyone aligned.

Estimation Techniques That Work Today

Modern estimation balances experience with data. Here are some techniques teams are using effectively:

  • Three-point estimation: Consider best-case, worst-case, and most likely scenarios.
  • Parametric estimation: Use historical data and formulas (e.g., ‘5 hours per user story’).
  • Analogous estimation: Reference similar past projects to gauge effort.
  • Monte Carlo simulation: Model delivery outcomes based on variability.
  • No-estimates forecasting: Skip the guesswork and rely on actual throughput trends.

Whether you’re sizing new work or forecasting a release, the goal is to use estimation to set realistic expectations, not false certainty. 

Estimation Techniques That Work Today

Hybrid Models Are the New Normal

Most teams aren’t strictly Agile or strictly traditional anymore. They mix methods to fit their environment. You might sprint through development while following a Waterfall-style approval process. Or plan quarterly outcomes with room for Agile experimentation.

These hybrid models provide the best of both worlds: flexibility for the team and structure for the stakeholders. It’s not about following a playbook—it’s about picking the right tools for the job.

Better Metrics Mean Smarter Planning

Story points and velocity still exist, but modern teams are expanding their toolkit. Metrics like cycle time, throughput, lead time, and flow efficiency offer deeper insights into how work really moves.

With these measures, you can spot bottlenecks, manage expectations, and forecast more accurately. Planning becomes less about guesswork and more about understanding your system.

The Real Value of Planning

So, why plan at all? Because planning brings clarity. It aligns teams, surfaces risks, and sparks conversations that might not happen otherwise.

Planning isn’t a rigid document — it’s a shared moment of focus. It helps everyone step back, look ahead, and move forward together.

Whether it’s in a sprint planning session, a roadmap review, or a collaborative estimation meeting, good planning invites better decisions and stronger teamwork.

Planning in the Age of AI

AI isn’t replacing planning — it’s making it smarter. Today’s tools can forecast delivery timelines, identify risks, and adjust plans based on real-time data.

From Jira Advanced Roadmaps to tools like ClickUp AI and Microsoft Copilot, teams can now plan faster and with more confidence. The human touch is still essential — but it’s now supported by powerful insights.

Why Planning Still Matters (Even If Plans Don’t)

Final Thoughts

Plans may go off course. That’s not a failure — that’s reality. But planning equips you to respond with purpose and clarity.

Modern estimating and planning aren’t about rigid control. They’re about creating shared understanding, enabling flexibility, and building momentum — even in uncertain times.

And in a world that rarely goes according to plan, that might be the most valuable tool of all.

bairesdev software outsourcing, wiseline software development, itijuana nearshore development, alternatives to bairesdev, better than wiseline, bairesdev vs sciodev, wiseline vs sciodev, itijuana vs sciodev, nearshore development companies comparison, top nearshore software companies, nearshore software development benefits, outsourcing software development to Mexico, why nearshoring works, what is nearshore outsourcing, nearshore vs offshore software development, nearshore software engineers in Latin America, agile nearshore development, challenges of nearshore outsourcing, how to choose a nearshore partner, nearshore IT outsourcing guide, hire nearshore software developers, scalable nearshore dev team, nearshore development Mexico, nearshore agile product team, custom software development Mexico, dedicated software team Latin America, remote development team Mexico, top software developers Mexico, enterprise software development nearshore, software engineering outsourcing Latin America, reduce development costs with nearshore, overcome developer shortage US, how to scale your dev team fast, managing remote development teams, remote collaboration best practices, nearshore team communication, software outsourcing without the headaches, how to avoid outsourcing mistakes, hiring senior developers nearshore, stable software development teams, build operate transfer software team, long-term software development partner, nearshore software partner not vendor, performance management for developers, culturally aligned software team, easy-to-work-with dev teams, team augmentation nearshore, staff augmentation Mexico, software development retention strategy, software delivery team integration
Adolfo Cruz - PMO Director

Adolfo Cruz

PMO Director