Interview for staff augmentation

 Another recommendation - be sure to give a feedback after the interview. This will supplement your requirements, and with subsequent candidates more likely everything will turn out, as the contractor will know that it is especially important for you.

It is unlikely that a normal vendor will try to slip a jun instead of Midl or Signora and risk ruining relationships, and also spend strength on such a microenjection. Plus, this is no different from the situation when a person comes from the market and says that he is a Signor. The risk that such an unskilled employee will slip through is inconsistent from the option from the market, and in the interview it will also be clearly seen, including the attempts of the vendor in advance to tighten the knowledge of the specialist under the profile of the request.

Client's view for staff augmentation

Life hack in this area: an account that works from the contractor is physically in the client’s office, goes to sprint planning, grooming, retrospectives, etc. This person understands what the product lives, what kind of culture is, what kind of people work there. Due to such a deep immersion, it is quite easy to select new participants to the team or make replacements - because he understands well what the project needs.

In our practice, there were several cases when we insisted to take a developer, rejected after the interview, for a test period for 1-2 weeks. If he had not passed the trial period, the customer would pay 50% of the cost - we took half of the risks on ourselves. But this has never happened - the developers always justified confidence and remained on the project.