You came here for a figure, and this page will not give you one. That is not a principle but an order of operations: the cost cannot be worked out until three conditions in your own work have been written down, and our quote form asks for those three before it asks for a budget range. The form is built in that order, with a subheading naming the conditions, then the description box for your scope, then the budget field. The sections below show where each condition sits on your side, and the table puts the narrow and the wide version of each side by side.
Two things that do not carry the price
Your industry and your company size sit in an optional step of our form, whose note says those details are optional and help us when the quote is put together. The step that shapes the scope is the one after it. The name of a technology does not carry the price either; what it carries is who will be able to maintain the system once it is live, and that belongs to the article on who maintains software after launch.
Why quotes for one brief pull apart is the subject of another article: they pull apart wherever the brief stays quiet, since every supplier fills a quiet line with its own guess. Why software quotes differ goes through those lines one by one. This page looks at which of them is open on your side.
A system to take over: it moves the scope
If a system is already running in your business, look at two things: do you hold the source code, and are parts of the system still standing? When both answers are yes, a quote prices the reading first and the places it will touch second, and the size of the job stays bounded by the parts carrying the load. KGM SsangYong’s corporate site was not built by us; it reached us live, we read the code before touching anything, and the work went only into the pages carrying the weight. A quote that reads the same brief as a rewrite prices no reading at all, and the two figures never sit on one scale. In software consulting work this is the first line we ask about.
The counter-case needs writing down. If the code is not in your hands, or will not come up on an empty server, there is nothing to read; the job is a rebuild rather than a takeover and is priced as one. The same holds when nothing in the system still works. The existence of a system does not make it a system you can take over.
Field records with no signal: it moves the structure
Look at the spot where the technician opens the record and ask whether there is coverage there. If records get opened in boiler rooms or lift shafts, the application stops being one surface. A second surface goes on the phone, a queue on that surface holds the record, and a rule decides which version wins when office and field touch the same record. The three arrive together and are maintained together; what widens the price is not a screen but that trio.
AlgoKlima lets a technician open a job where the coverage ends and delivers it once the connection is back; we operate the product ourselves and keep building it. How the queue holds a record on the phone, and the order it empties in, is covered in the article on offline-first field apps rather than here.
The counter-case: if your technicians never leave coverage, do not ask for this line. A form that sends when it has signal does the job, the second surface and the conflict rule are never built, and the quote narrows by that much. Putting the line in the brief has a cost; leaving it out has a cost that only shows up on the day a record cannot be opened on site.
Request types that must travel apart: it moves the data model
Look at whatever lands in the single inbox of your site or your phone: is it all one kind of work, or are two different jobs waiting on the same list? If a survey booking and a fault call land on the same form, each type gets its own path; the request carries its type from the moment it exists and reaches operations already sorted. Diotek used to take both on one phone line, since a survey booking concerns a room with nothing installed in it while a service call concerns a unit already running, and we gave each its own intake path when we built the site. Why the two do not share a form is set out in separating appointments and service requests; the point here is that the separation is a decision about data rather than about a screen, and decisions about data enter the price.
The same condition has a second face: what a request attaches to. Tied to a person card and a time slot, the job is done. Where it has to attach to a plan step, a device or a remaining credit, it cannot sit under the person card and the data model has to carry that link. The dental clinic CRM binds an appointment to one step of a patient’s treatment plan, and reordering the plan moves the calendar. Pilatesco ties the link to remaining class credits, so a member’s package balance no longer lives in a notebook beside the calendar. The counter-case is just as plain: if only one kind of request ever reaches the site, one form is the right answer, and a quote that priced two paths priced work you do not need.
The table below opens the three conditions into six rows; the left column of each row is the version that keeps the cost narrow, the right column the version that widens it. Apply the rows to your own work and note which column you stand in. Those notes are the sentences that belong in the description box of our quote form’s third step, Your project. Write them into the quote form; the figure comes on top of them.