- We offer certified developers to hire.
- We’ve performed 1500+ Web/App/eCommerce projects.
- Our clientele is 1000+.
- Free quotation on your project.
- We sign NDA for the security of your projects.
- Three months warranty on code developed by us.
Software development outsourcing has become a strategic cornerstone for companies of all sizes. From startups building their first product to enterprises scaling global platforms, outsourcing is no longer a temporary cost-saving tactic. It is a long-term operational strategy that enables access to talent, accelerates development timelines, and improves business focus.
In today’s digital economy, software is not just a support function. It is often the product itself. This reality has reshaped how organizations approach development. Instead of relying solely on in-house teams, many businesses now partner with external software development providers to remain competitive, agile, and innovative.
This all-in-one guide explains software development outsourcing in depth. It is written to help founders, CTOs, CIOs, product managers, and business leaders understand what outsourcing really involves, why it has evolved, and how to approach it with clarity rather than assumptions.
Software development outsourcing is the practice of delegating software-related tasks or entire projects to an external organization or team instead of handling them internally. These tasks can range from simple feature development to full-cycle product engineering, including design, development, testing, deployment, and maintenance.
Outsourcing does not mean relinquishing control. In modern outsourcing models, companies retain ownership of product vision, strategy, and decision-making while leveraging external expertise for execution.
The scope of outsourcing varies widely. Some companies outsource a specific module or technology area. Others rely on external teams as their primary development arm. The approach depends on business goals, internal capabilities, and risk tolerance.
Outsourcing has undergone a significant transformation over the past two decades. Initially, it was viewed primarily as a cost-reduction tactic. Companies outsourced development to lower-cost regions to reduce expenses.
While cost efficiency remains a factor, it is no longer the primary driver. Today, outsourcing is driven by access to specialized skills, faster time to market, and scalability.
The rise of cloud computing, collaboration tools, and remote work culture has made distributed development more practical and effective. Time zone differences, once considered a barrier, are now often used to enable continuous development cycles.
In addition, the growing complexity of software systems has increased demand for niche expertise. Technologies such as artificial intelligence, data engineering, cybersecurity, and cloud-native architecture require skills that are difficult to build quickly in-house. Outsourcing provides immediate access to these capabilities.
There are several reasons why organizations adopt outsourcing as part of their development strategy.
One of the most important is speed. Hiring and onboarding in-house developers can take months. Outsourcing allows companies to assemble skilled teams quickly and start development without long delays.
Another reason is flexibility. Outsourcing enables businesses to scale teams up or down based on project needs. This is particularly valuable for startups and fast-growing companies that face fluctuating workloads.
Cost predictability is also a factor. While outsourcing is not always cheaper in absolute terms, it often provides clearer cost structures and reduces long-term overhead associated with full-time employees.
Perhaps most importantly, outsourcing allows internal teams to focus on core business activities. By delegating development execution, leaders can concentrate on strategy, customer engagement, and growth initiatives.
Despite its widespread adoption, outsourcing is often misunderstood.
One common misconception is that outsourcing means low quality. In reality, quality depends on process, communication, and partner selection rather than geography. Many outsourced teams deliver enterprise-grade solutions used by millions of users.
Another misconception is that outsourcing eliminates the need for internal technical leadership. Successful outsourcing requires strong internal ownership of product direction, requirements, and priorities. Outsourcing complements internal leadership rather than replacing it.
Some believe outsourcing works only for large companies. In practice, startups and small businesses often benefit the most because outsourcing allows them to compete with larger players without building large internal teams.
At a conceptual level, outsourcing can be categorized based on scope and responsibility.
Task-based outsourcing focuses on specific deliverables or components. This approach works well for clearly defined tasks with limited dependencies.
Project-based outsourcing involves delegating an entire project to an external team. The vendor handles development execution while the client oversees objectives and outcomes.
Team-based outsourcing, often called dedicated teams, provides ongoing development capacity. External developers work as an extension of the internal team over a long period.
Each approach serves different business needs and carries different management requirements.
Trust is a critical component of successful software development outsourcing. Because development work is complex and iterative, transparency and communication matter as much as technical skill.
Modern outsourcing relies heavily on collaboration tools, regular meetings, shared documentation, and clear reporting structures. Companies that treat outsourcing partners as collaborators rather than vendors consistently achieve better results.
Clear expectations, well-defined processes, and mutual accountability form the foundation of productive outsourcing relationships.
The value of outsourcing changes depending on where a company is in its lifecycle.
Early-stage startups often outsource to build MVPs quickly and test ideas without heavy investment. Growth-stage companies use outsourcing to scale development capacity and accelerate feature delivery. Enterprises outsource to modernize legacy systems, adopt new technologies, or manage large transformation initiatives.
Understanding the role outsourcing plays at each stage helps businesses design more effective engagement models.
Outsourcing is not without risks. Common concerns include communication gaps, misaligned expectations, data security, and dependency on external teams.
However, these risks are manageable with proper planning. Clear contracts, robust onboarding, security practices, and performance monitoring significantly reduce potential issues.
Most outsourcing failures occur not because outsourcing is flawed, but because it is approached without strategy or preparation.
The global talent market has expanded dramatically. Skilled developers are available across regions, each with its own strengths.
This globalization allows companies to tap into diverse expertise and perspectives. It also increases competition among service providers, which improves quality and innovation.
As a result, software development outsourcing has become less about location and more about capability, experience, and cultural fit.
Choosing the right outsourcing model is one of the most important decisions in software development outsourcing. The model you select directly affects cost control, development speed, communication efficiency, flexibility, and final product quality. Many outsourcing failures happen not because the vendor lacks skill, but because the engagement model does not align with the business goal.
This part explains the major software development outsourcing models in detail, how they work in practice, and when each model is most effective. Understanding these distinctions allows companies to outsource with intention rather than experimentation.
Software development is not a one-size-fits-all activity. A startup validating an idea has very different needs from an enterprise modernizing a legacy system. Outsourcing models exist to match these different realities.
An outsourcing model defines how responsibilities are divided, how teams collaborate, how pricing is structured, and how changes are handled. When the model matches the project context, outsourcing feels smooth and predictable. When it does not, friction increases and results suffer.
In modern outsourcing, flexibility and clarity matter more than rigid structures.
Project-based outsourcing is one of the most common and straightforward engagement models. In this approach, a company outsources a specific project with clearly defined requirements, scope, timeline, and deliverables.
The outsourcing vendor is responsible for executing the project according to the agreed plan. Pricing is usually fixed or milestone-based, making budgeting predictable.
This model works best when requirements are stable and well-documented. Examples include building a website, developing a mobile app with defined features, or migrating a system with clear objectives.
The main advantage of project-based outsourcing is simplicity. Companies know what they are paying for and what they will receive. However, flexibility is limited. Changes in scope often require renegotiation, which can slow progress and increase cost.
Project-based outsourcing is less suitable for products that evolve rapidly or require ongoing iteration.
The dedicated development team model is designed for long-term collaboration. Instead of outsourcing a single project, companies hire an external team that works exclusively on their product.
This team typically includes developers, testers, and sometimes designers or DevOps engineers. They operate as an extension of the internal team, following the client’s processes, tools, and priorities.
Pricing is usually based on monthly rates rather than fixed deliverables. This provides flexibility to adjust scope and priorities as the product evolves.
This model is ideal for startups scaling their product, companies building complex platforms, or organizations that need continuous development support. It allows for deeper product understanding, faster iteration, and better alignment over time.
The trade-off is that cost predictability requires active management. Because scope is flexible, companies must maintain strong product ownership to ensure efficiency.
The time and material model is closely related to the dedicated team approach but is more granular. Companies pay for the actual time and resources used rather than a fixed scope or team.
This model offers maximum flexibility. Requirements can change, features can be added or removed, and priorities can shift without renegotiating contracts.
Time and material outsourcing works well for exploratory projects, research and development, and products in early stages where requirements are uncertain.
The main challenge with this model is cost control. Without clear goals and regular review, budgets can expand unexpectedly. Successful use of this model requires strong communication, transparent reporting, and active oversight.
Offshore outsourcing involves working with teams located in distant regions, often with significant time zone differences. This model is commonly used to access cost-effective talent and large development capacity.
Offshore teams often specialize in full-cycle development and can handle large projects efficiently. Many companies use offshore outsourcing to scale quickly without building large internal teams.
Time zone differences can be an advantage or a challenge. Some teams use overlapping hours for collaboration, while others leverage round-the-clock development cycles.
The success of offshore outsourcing depends heavily on communication practices, documentation quality, and cultural alignment. When managed well, it can deliver excellent results at competitive cost.
Nearshore outsourcing refers to working with teams in nearby regions or similar time zones. This model balances cost efficiency with easier communication and cultural alignment.
Companies often choose nearshore outsourcing to reduce coordination challenges while still accessing external talent. Real-time collaboration is easier, and travel for in-person meetings is more feasible.
Nearshore outsourcing is popular among companies that value close collaboration but do not want to build full in-house teams.
Cost savings may be lower than offshore outsourcing, but the reduction in communication friction often compensates for this difference.
Onshore outsourcing involves partnering with development teams in the same country. This model offers the highest level of cultural alignment, regulatory familiarity, and communication ease.
Companies often choose onshore outsourcing for projects involving sensitive data, strict compliance requirements, or close stakeholder collaboration.
The primary drawback is cost. Onshore development rates are typically higher than offshore or nearshore options. As a result, this model is more common among enterprises or well-funded organizations.
Staff augmentation is a hybrid approach where companies supplement their internal teams with external developers. These developers work under the company’s direction and integrate into existing workflows.
This model is useful when internal teams lack specific skills or need additional capacity temporarily. It provides flexibility without fully outsourcing responsibility.
Staff augmentation works best when internal processes are mature and technical leadership is strong. Without clear guidance, augmented staff may struggle to integrate effectively.
Full-cycle outsourcing involves delegating the entire software development lifecycle to an external partner. This includes planning, design, development, testing, deployment, and maintenance.
This model reduces internal workload and allows companies to focus on strategy and business growth. It is often used by non-technical founders or organizations without strong internal development teams.
The success of full-cycle outsourcing depends on selecting a partner with proven experience and transparent processes. Trust and accountability are essential.
Different stages of business require different outsourcing approaches.
Early-stage startups often benefit from dedicated teams or time and material models that allow flexibility and rapid iteration. Growth-stage companies may prefer dedicated teams or hybrid models to scale efficiently. Enterprises often use project-based or full-cycle outsourcing for defined initiatives.
There is no universally best model. The right choice depends on goals, risk tolerance, budget, and internal capabilities.
One common mistake is choosing a model based solely on cost. Lower cost does not guarantee better value if the model restricts flexibility or creates misalignment.
Another mistake is underestimating the need for internal involvement. Even with outsourcing, product ownership and decision-making remain critical.
Companies also often choose overly rigid models for evolving products or overly flexible models for fixed-scope projects. Matching the model to the nature of work is key.
Outsourcing models are not permanent. Many successful companies transition between models as their needs evolve.
A startup may begin with a project-based MVP, then move to a dedicated team for scaling. An enterprise may use staff augmentation during peak demand and return to in-house development later.
Planning for these transitions early reduces disruption and cost.
Regardless of model, governance and communication define success. Clear roles, documentation, reporting, and feedback loops are essential.
Regular check-ins, performance metrics, and shared tools create transparency and alignment. Outsourcing works best when partners are treated as collaborators rather than vendors.
Software development outsourcing delivers significant advantages, but it also introduces real risks if approached without structure and foresight. Organizations that succeed with outsourcing do not do so by chance. They understand both sides clearly and put mechanisms in place to amplify benefits while minimizing downside.
This part explores the tangible benefits of software development outsourcing, the most common risks and challenges companies face, and practical strategies to manage them effectively. This balanced understanding is essential for making outsourcing a strategic asset rather than an operational gamble.
One of the most cited benefits of outsourcing is access to global talent. Skilled developers, architects, QA engineers, and specialists are available worldwide, often with deep experience in specific technologies or industries. This access allows companies to build stronger teams faster than relying solely on local hiring.
Speed to market is another major advantage. Outsourcing reduces the time spent recruiting, onboarding, and training internal staff. External teams are often ready to start immediately, which is critical in competitive markets where timing matters.
Cost efficiency remains an important factor, though it should be understood correctly. Outsourcing does not always mean lower absolute cost. Instead, it often provides better cost-to-value ratio. Companies avoid long-term employment overhead, infrastructure costs, and idle capacity during slow periods.
Scalability is a practical benefit. Outsourced teams can be scaled up or down based on project demand. This flexibility is particularly valuable for startups and growth-stage companies that experience fluctuating workloads.
Outsourcing also allows internal teams to focus on core business activities. By delegating development execution, leadership can concentrate on strategy, partnerships, customer experience, and market expansion.
Beyond operational advantages, outsourcing can offer strategic benefits. External teams often bring fresh perspectives, best practices, and exposure to diverse projects. This can improve decision-making and product quality.
Outsourcing also supports innovation by enabling experimentation without committing internal resources long term. Companies can test new ideas, technologies, or markets with controlled risk.
For enterprises, outsourcing is often used to modernize legacy systems or adopt emerging technologies without disrupting existing operations.
Despite its benefits, outsourcing introduces real risks that must be acknowledged.
One of the most common risks is communication breakdown. Differences in language, time zones, and work culture can lead to misunderstandings, delays, or misaligned expectations.
Another risk is loss of control. When development is external, companies may feel disconnected from day-to-day execution. Without proper governance, this can lead to scope drift or quality issues.
Quality inconsistency is another concern. Not all outsourcing providers maintain the same standards. Poor testing, rushed delivery, or lack of documentation can undermine long-term maintainability.
Data security and intellectual property protection are critical risks, especially for companies handling sensitive information or proprietary algorithms.
Dependency risk can arise when a company becomes overly reliant on a single vendor without sufficient internal knowledge transfer.
Most outsourcing failures do not stem from technical incompetence. They stem from misalignment.
Unclear requirements are a leading cause. When goals, scope, and success criteria are vague, external teams cannot deliver effectively.
Poor onboarding is another factor. Without proper context, documentation, and access, outsourced teams struggle to understand product vision and constraints.
Lack of internal ownership often leads to failure. Outsourcing does not eliminate the need for strong product leadership. Without clear decision-makers, progress stalls.
Finally, unrealistic expectations around cost, speed, or autonomy create frustration on both sides.
Effective communication is the foundation of successful outsourcing.
Clear documentation is essential. Product requirements, acceptance criteria, and technical standards should be written and accessible. Relying solely on verbal explanations increases risk.
Regular meetings establish rhythm and accountability. These may include daily stand-ups, weekly progress reviews, and milestone check-ins. Consistency matters more than frequency.
Using shared collaboration tools ensures transparency. Project management systems, code repositories, and communication platforms keep everyone aligned.
Time zone differences can be managed by defining overlapping hours and response expectations. Many teams successfully operate with limited overlap when processes are clear.
Quality assurance should never be assumed. It must be built into the outsourcing process.
Defining quality standards upfront sets expectations. This includes coding guidelines, testing requirements, and documentation practices.
Incremental delivery reduces risk. Breaking work into small, reviewable pieces allows issues to be identified early.
Code reviews and automated testing improve consistency. Even when development is outsourced, internal technical oversight adds value.
Performance metrics help track progress. Velocity, defect rates, and delivery predictability provide objective insight into team effectiveness.
Security and IP protection require both legal and technical measures.
Clear contracts define ownership of code, data, and deliverables. Confidentiality agreements protect sensitive information.
Access control limits exposure. Outsourced teams should have access only to systems necessary for their work.
Secure development practices reduce risk. This includes encryption, secure authentication, and regular security reviews.
Data residency and compliance requirements must be considered, especially in regulated industries.
Vendor dependency becomes a risk when knowledge and control reside entirely outside the organization.
Documentation is a key mitigation strategy. Architecture, workflows, and decisions should be recorded and shared.
Internal stakeholders should understand the system at a high level, even if they are not writing code daily.
Gradual knowledge transfer reduces dependency. Pairing internal and external team members during critical phases improves resilience.
Maintaining the option to transition between vendors or bring work in-house provides leverage and flexibility.
Cultural alignment influences collaboration quality more than many technical factors.
Respect and professionalism build trust. Treating outsourced teams as partners rather than disposable resources improves outcomes.
Clear feedback loops help address issues early. Constructive feedback should be timely and specific.
Understanding cultural norms improves communication. Awareness of working styles, holidays, and expectations prevents friction.
Trust grows through consistency. When both sides honor commitments, collaboration becomes smoother over time.
Strong governance structures reduce outsourcing risk significantly.
Defining roles and responsibilities clarifies who makes decisions, who approves changes, and who resolves issues.
Escalation paths ensure problems are addressed quickly rather than festering.
Regular performance reviews allow course correction. Outsourcing relationships should evolve based on results, not assumptions.
Governance does not mean micromanagement. It means clarity, accountability, and alignment.
Successful outsourcing strikes a balance between control and autonomy.
Too much control slows progress and demotivates teams. Too little control leads to drift and surprises.
Setting clear outcomes while allowing teams flexibility in execution often produces the best results.
Trusting experienced partners to solve problems creatively can unlock additional value beyond initial expectations.
Software development outsourcing decisions ultimately come down to cost, value, and long-term reliability. While earlier parts explained models, benefits, and risks, this section focuses on the most practical questions business leaders ask before outsourcing. How much does outsourcing really cost. Why do prices vary so widely across regions. How can companies avoid choosing the wrong vendor. And how can outsourcing remain cost-effective without compromising quality.
Understanding outsourcing cost is not about finding the cheapest option. It is about understanding what you are paying for, what risks you are absorbing, and what outcomes you can realistically expect.
The cost of software development outsourcing is composed of more than hourly or monthly rates. It includes planning effort, development execution, communication overhead, quality assurance, security practices, and long-term maintainability.
Many companies underestimate cost because they focus only on development hours. In reality, effective outsourcing also requires internal time for requirement definition, reviews, and decision-making. These internal efforts are part of the total cost of ownership.
Outsourcing can still be highly cost-effective, but only when the full cost picture is understood from the beginning.
Outsourcing vendors typically offer several pricing structures. Each model affects cost predictability and flexibility differently.
Fixed-price models offer a defined scope at a predetermined cost. They work best for well-documented projects with stable requirements. While predictable, they are less flexible when changes are needed.
Time and material pricing charges based on actual effort spent. This model supports evolving requirements and continuous iteration. Cost control depends on active management and clear priorities.
Dedicated team pricing provides a monthly cost for a full-time team. This model balances flexibility and continuity and is popular for long-term product development.
Outcome-based pricing, though less common, ties payment to specific results. It requires strong trust and clear metrics to work effectively.
Choosing the right pricing model is as important as choosing the vendor itself.
Geography remains a significant factor in outsourcing cost, even in a remote-first world.
North America and Western Europe typically have the highest development rates. These regions offer strong domain expertise, mature processes, and regulatory familiarity. They are often chosen for complex enterprise systems or compliance-heavy projects.
Eastern Europe offers a balance between cost and quality. Many teams in this region have strong engineering fundamentals, good English proficiency, and experience with global clients.
South Asia provides some of the most cost-effective outsourcing options. Large talent pools and competitive pricing make this region attractive for startups and scale-ups. Quality varies widely, making vendor selection critical.
Latin America is increasingly popular for near-time-zone collaboration with North American companies. Costs are moderate, and communication benefits are strong.
It is important to note that lower hourly rates do not always mean lower total cost. Communication issues, rework, and delays can offset initial savings.
One of the most common outsourcing mistakes is choosing a vendor based primarily on price.
Low-cost vendors may cut corners on testing, documentation, security, or architecture. These shortcuts often lead to technical debt, performance issues, and scalability problems.
Fixing these issues later is far more expensive than building correctly from the start. Many companies end up rebuilding systems entirely, doubling their original investment.
Cost efficiency comes from experience, process maturity, and problem prevention, not from low rates alone.
Choosing the right outsourcing partner requires more than reviewing a portfolio or rate card.
Experience in similar projects or industries matters. Vendors who understand your domain anticipate challenges and reduce risk.
Process transparency is essential. Clear development workflows, reporting practices, and quality assurance processes indicate maturity.
Communication style and responsiveness should be evaluated early. Delays or vague answers during sales discussions often signal future problems.
Security practices must be assessed, especially when handling sensitive data or intellectual property. This includes access control, data handling policies, and compliance awareness.
Client references provide insight into real-world collaboration. Speaking with past clients often reveals strengths and weaknesses not visible on a website.
A common mistake is selecting technically strong vendors without considering strategic alignment.
Some vendors excel at execution but lack product thinking. Others provide strong consulting but struggle with delivery discipline.
The right partner understands not only how to build software, but why it is being built. They help refine scope, suggest alternatives, and align development with business objectives.
This alignment directly affects cost efficiency by reducing unnecessary work and preventing misdirected effort.
Even with the right vendor, cost can escalate without proper governance.
Clear scope definition sets boundaries. Changes should be evaluated against business value, not convenience.
Regular progress reviews help detect issues early. Transparency allows adjustments before problems compound.
Clear ownership ensures decisions are made quickly. Delays often increase cost more than technical complexity.
Governance does not mean controlling every detail. It means maintaining alignment and accountability.
Outsourcing cost should be evaluated over the entire lifecycle of the software, not just initial development.
Maintenance, enhancements, infrastructure, and support add ongoing expense. Well-built systems cost less to maintain over time.
Knowledge transfer reduces dependency and future cost. Documentation and shared understanding protect against vendor lock-in.
Scalability planning affects long-term cost significantly. Systems designed for growth avoid expensive rewrites later.
Thinking long-term transforms outsourcing from a tactical decision into a strategic investment.
Companies that succeed with outsourcing often treat partners as extensions of their team rather than interchangeable vendors.
A strategic partner contributes to planning, risk assessment, and continuous improvement. They help clients make better decisions, not just implement requests.
Working with an experienced software development outsourcing company like Abbacus Technologies allows businesses to combine cost efficiency with strong technical execution and product-focused guidance. Such partnerships reduce long-term cost by preventing common outsourcing pitfalls and ensuring scalable, maintainable solutions.
The right partner adds value beyond code.
Every outsourcing decision involves trade-offs between cost, quality, and speed. Optimizing one often affects the others.
Lower cost may require longer timelines or narrower scope. Faster delivery may increase cost due to higher resource allocation. Higher quality may require more upfront investment but reduces long-term expense.
Successful companies make these trade-offs consciously, based on business priorities rather than assumptions.
Software development outsourcing has matured into a strategic business practice rather than a short-term solution for reducing costs. In an environment where software defines competitiveness, speed, and customer experience, outsourcing enables organizations to access global talent, scale efficiently, and focus internal resources on core priorities. When approached thoughtfully, it becomes a powerful extension of the business rather than an external dependency.
This guide has shown that successful outsourcing starts with clarity. Companies must understand why they are outsourcing, what outcomes they expect, and how outsourcing fits into their broader business strategy. Outsourcing works best when it is aligned with clear goals such as faster time to market, access to specialized expertise, or scalable development capacity. Without this alignment, even technically capable vendors struggle to deliver value.
Choosing the right outsourcing model is equally important. Project-based, dedicated teams, time and material, staff augmentation, and full-cycle outsourcing each serve different needs. There is no universally correct model. The right choice depends on product maturity, requirement stability, internal capabilities, and risk tolerance. Organizations that match the model to the nature of the work experience fewer conflicts and better results.
Outsourcing also requires realistic awareness of risks. Communication gaps, quality issues, security concerns, and vendor dependency are real challenges, but they are manageable. Strong documentation, clear governance, regular communication, and shared accountability significantly reduce these risks. Most outsourcing failures occur not because outsourcing is flawed, but because it is treated as a hands-off activity rather than a collaborative process.
Cost is often the most visible factor in outsourcing decisions, but it should never be the only one. Lower hourly rates do not automatically translate into lower total cost. Rework, delays, technical debt, and poor scalability frequently make cheap outsourcing expensive in the long run. Sustainable cost efficiency comes from experience, process maturity, and alignment with business goals.
Vendor selection deserves careful attention. A strong outsourcing partner offers more than development capacity. They bring product thinking, technical judgment, and execution discipline. The best partners help clients make better decisions, avoid unnecessary complexity, and plan for long-term maintainability. Treating outsourcing partners as collaborators rather than interchangeable vendors leads to stronger outcomes and more resilient software.
Finally, outsourcing should be viewed as an evolving relationship rather than a one-time transaction. Business needs change, products grow, and strategies shift. Successful organizations continuously refine how they work with external teams, adapting models, scope, and governance as needed. This flexibility turns outsourcing into a long-term advantage.
In conclusion, software development outsourcing is neither a shortcut nor a compromise. It is a strategic tool that, when used correctly, enables organizations to build better software faster and more efficiently. With clear objectives, the right model, disciplined execution, and a focus on partnership, outsourcing becomes a catalyst for innovation, growth, and long-term success.
Get cost, timeline & technical suggestions within 24 hours.
