I want an independent review of our systems and technical decisions — answered by Engineer Saeed Baatiah
An independent review is useful precisely when whoever builds is also the one assessing their own work. What it typically covers: an inventory of systems and contracts with their real costs, points of dependency on a single person or vendor, backup status and whether restores have actually been tested, an assessment of current vendor proposals, and your ownership of the code and accounts. Its output is a written report in management language rather than technical language.
What a review typically uncovers and surprises owners: subscriptions paid monthly for services nobody has used in a year, domain or hosting accounts registered to a former employee or an old vendor, backups stopped months ago with no notification, a development contract that does not transfer code ownership, and one person who alone knows critical passwords.
And the output is written in management language rather than technical, a requirement rather than a detail: a report you cannot understand has no value however accurate it is. Each item is stated by its consequence — “this subscription costs you this much a year and goes unused”, “this account is in the name of someone who left and you cannot reach it if they refuse” — not by its technical term.
And the specific value of an independent review is that it comes from a party not selling you the remedy. Anyone who reviews and then offers to build the replacement has an interest in finding problems — a conflict to be aware of and to ask about plainly before agreeing.
- Typically uncovers: wasted subscriptions, accounts of people who left, stopped backups
- Output in management language — a report you cannot read has no value
- Ask: will you offer to build what you recommend? A conflict worth naming