Team decisions / Review the assumptions
Recheck the reasons behind your nearshore decision.
A location decision can outlast the assumptions that justified it. Remote working arrangements, AI use and the available skills picture deserve a fresh look. So do the communication, access and cost assumptions around the actual team. Rebuild the case from current evidence before renewing, expanding or moving the work.
What needs a fresh look
The evidence can change without dictating the answer.
The nearshore calculus is the reasoning behind using a team in a nearby country: access to suitable people, usable collaboration, complete cost and manageable responsibilities. Current research gives reasons to revisit that reasoning. It does not establish that a particular nearby team is now better, cheaper or easier to work with. Test the arrangement you can actually buy and operate.
- Measured change
- Remote-work surveys, AI-use research and employment statistics describe changes in defined populations and periods. Keep those boundaries attached to the finding.
- Operating implication
- Use current communication, security and sourcing guidance to decide what to inspect. A sensible control is not proof of a new market-wide trend.
- Engagement evidence
- Schedules, accepted changes, access records, current quotes and assigned-role evidence determine whether your original case still holds.
Six assumptions to revisit
Ask what changed in the work, then in the proposal.
Each lens below names its evidence type. The review actions are Werkon's practical interpretation, not findings that the cited research tested in a nearshore engagement.
Remote work has persisted
01Evidence and limit: Measured trend: a July 2025 PNAS study found work-from-home levels broadly stabilized after 2022 among college-educated employees. Its time comparison covered 23 countries through late 2024/early 2025.
- Assumption to revisit
- The original choice treated domestic work as office-based and overseas work as remote.
- Request now
- Actual work locations, planned visits, shared availability and access to decision makers.
- Review action
- Compare the proposed schedules with the decisions the project needs. Identify where physical presence has a concrete purpose.
- Decision owner
- The delivery owner agrees the working arrangement with the people involved.
- Useful result
- A usable participation plan for both routine work and unresolved decisions.
- Avoid concluding
- Work-from-home prevalence proves cross-border delivery quality or makes proximity irrelevant.
- Reopen the decision when
- Required participants cannot meet or decide when the work needs them.
AI use changes what needs inspecting
02Evidence and limit: Survey signal: Google's September 2025 DORA summary reports AI use among 90% of respondents in a survey of nearly 5,000 technology professionals. Reported individual benefits do not establish a supplier's delivery saving.
- Assumption to revisit
- A proposal assumes AI will reduce effort without showing how outputs are checked and integrated.
- Request now
- Permitted tools, permitted information, representative changes, review effort and defects.
- Review action
- Inspect an accepted change from input through testing and review. Include correction and integration work in the comparison.
- Decision owner
- Technical and information owners approve tool use; accountable reviewers accept the result.
- Useful result
- A task-specific account of contribution, checking and remaining work.
- Avoid concluding
- AI adoption or faster generation guarantees cheaper accepted software.
- Reopen the decision when
- The claimed gain excludes work that the client or another team must perform.
Communication needs a working record
03Evidence and limit: Operating guidance: GitLab's current meeting practices emphasize preparation and written follow-through. They offer a concrete example of distributed coordination, not proof that distance has stopped mattering.
- Assumption to revisit
- The old case counted time-zone proximity but did not check decision availability or written context.
- Request now
- A recent decision, its background, responsible participants and the record a receiver would use.
- Review action
- Ask someone outside the meeting to explain the agreed next action. Test whether unresolved questions reach a person who can answer.
- Decision owner
- The product or delivery owner resolves ambiguity and assigns decisions.
- Useful result
- A shared record that supports action without repeated relaying.
- Avoid concluding
- More meetings or a nearby time zone automatically creates shared understanding.
- Reopen the decision when
- Work repeatedly waits for context, clarification or an unavailable decision maker.
Access follows the actual delivery chain
04Evidence and limit: Operating guidance: NCSC principles cover proportionate supplier requirements, subcontracting and controlled access. They support renewed diligence when the delivery chain changes; they are not a regional risk ranking.
- Assumption to revisit
- The supplier has added tools, people or subcontractors since the original review.
- Request now
- Current participants, systems, information flows, access needs and removal arrangements.
- Review action
- Compare the live arrangement with the approved scope. Have responsible specialists resolve any new access or information-handling requirements.
- Decision owner
- Authorized security, information and legal owners decide applicable requirements.
- Useful result
- A current responsibility and access record with unresolved gaps assigned.
- Avoid concluding
- A nearby office or an unchanged supplier name proves the same security position.
- Reopen the decision when
- The supplier cannot account for who or what can reach the work and data.
The cost basis may have moved
05Evidence and limit: Commercial review: the Sourcing Playbook's whole-life approach includes costs beyond supplier charges. This is a comparison method, not evidence that a region's prices rose or fell.
- Assumption to revisit
- The renewal keeps an old rate comparison while scope, tools, review or retained client effort has changed.
- Request now
- Current scoped quotes, client effort, tools, transition, operating costs and explicit unknowns.
- Review action
- Reprice the same accepted scope and responsibilities. Keep evidenced changes separate from assumed future efficiency.
- Decision owner
- The commercial owner accepts the comparison basis and unresolved exposure.
- Useful result
- A reconciled cost view whose inclusions and exclusions can be checked.
- Avoid concluding
- An unchanged hourly rate means unchanged total cost, or lower rates mean lower complete cost.
- Reopen the decision when
- Material cost lines lack a source, an owner or a comparable scope.
Employment growth is not a staffing offer
06Evidence and limit: Employment data: Eurostat reports 10.45 million EU ICT specialists in 2025, up 2.6% from 2024. These are employed people across the economy, not an available nearshore hiring pool.
- Assumption to revisit
- The shortlist relies on a country-level talent story instead of the people proposed for the work.
- Request now
- Assigned roles, relevant contribution, availability, review capacity and continuity arrangements.
- Review action
- Use a representative task or prior-work discussion to inspect the proposed contribution. Verify actual assignment before depending on capacity.
- Decision owner
- Engineering and hiring owners assess capability and the proposed team.
- Useful result
- A role-level capability and capacity case with gaps made explicit.
- Avoid concluding
- A larger ICT workforce guarantees access to the skills, seniority or start date required.
- Reopen the decision when
- The people offered differ materially from those whose work was assessed.
Renewal review
Give each old assumption a current answer.
Use this as a review record, not a weighted score that can hide a hard requirement. An unsupported assumption stays open until evidence or an accountable decision resolves it.
| Original assumption | Current evidence | Keep it when | Amend it when | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proximity gives access | Actual schedules and decision participation | The required people can collaborate | Visits or decision hours need a new agreement | Same time zone means available owners |
| AI lowers effort | Accepted work including checking and correction | The benefit is supported for this work | Review, tool or integration effort changes | Generated output equals completed work |
| Context travels with the work | A receiver can explain the decision and next action | The current record is usable | Repeated clarification needs a different process | Meeting attendance means understanding |
| The access position is unchanged | Current people, tools and information flows | The approved scope still matches reality | A changed delivery chain needs review | Location establishes security |
| The old price comparison still holds | Equivalent scope with complete sourced costs | The comparison includes retained work | Scope, tools or client effort has changed | One rate establishes total cost |
| Suitable talent is available | Relevant contribution and actual assignment | The proposed capacity is evidenced | Roles, availability or continuity differ | Employment statistics are a supplier offer |
A practical review
Rebuild the case without assuming a move.
Illustrative renewal: the supplier's hourly rate is unchanged, AI assistance has been introduced, and the client now spends more time reviewing changes. That combination does not prove a saving or a loss. Compare the same accepted scope, including tool charges, checking, correction and client effort, before changing the agreement.
- 01
Recover the original reasons
List the capability, collaboration, access and cost assumptions behind the decision. Separate documented requirements from preferences and claims that were never tested.
- 02
Record what actually changed
Note changes in scope, people, schedules, tools, information flows and responsibilities. Attach dated evidence. Market research supplies context; the engagement record supplies the local facts.
- 03
Inspect representative work
Trace a change from request to acceptance and a decision from question to resolution. Include the client's contribution, waiting, correction and integration. Avoid selecting only an unusually easy example.
- 04
Compare supported options
Assess keeping the arrangement, changing its terms or testing an alternative on equivalent responsibilities. Include transition effort and unresolved constraints. A change of supplier is one option, not the default answer.
- 05
Record the next review trigger
Name the owner and the evidence still needed. Agree which staffing, access, scope, cost or delivery change would reopen the case. Preserve an explicit decision to retain an arrangement that still works.
Keep the review useful
Separate a signal from a commitment.
A report can suggest a question. Only the actual proposal and operating evidence can answer it for the engagement.
- Date each assumption
- Record when it was established, its source and which scope it covers. A fresh publication may describe an older period; a recent quote may still omit necessary work.
- Preserve contrary evidence
- Keep defects, waiting and failed handoffs alongside successful examples. Investigate the cause before attributing it to location, tools or a particular contributor.
- Keep hard requirements visible
- Required access, competent ownership and usable acceptance cannot disappear inside an average score. Assign unresolved conditions to the people authorized to decide them.
- Compare the transition too
- A proposed improvement must account for knowledge transfer, parallel responsibilities and receiving capacity. Include those costs and risks before treating a new arrangement as preferable.
Questions behind the change
A changed assumption can justify a small adjustment.
The review may support the current team, a different working agreement or a new sourcing option. Its purpose is a supported decision.
- Has remote work removed the value of nearshore delivery?
- No such conclusion follows from work-from-home research. Physical participation, actual shared hours and access to decision makers can still matter. Test those needs directly instead of equating a country label with a working arrangement.
- Should AI use automatically reduce a quote?
- No. Ask which work changes and where effort moves. Compare accepted scope including review, correction, integration, tool costs and client contribution. A supplier's demonstrated task-level result is more relevant than an adoption statistic.
- Does a growing European ICT workforce make hiring easier?
- Employment growth alone cannot answer that. It does not establish availability for a particular skill, seniority, language, schedule or assignment. Inspect the proposed people and capacity before building a plan around them.
- Should we move away from an arrangement built on old assumptions?
- Review it first. Some assumptions may still hold; others may need clearer ownership, a different communication routine or revised scope. Include the cost and disruption of transition when comparing a replacement.
- How often should the nearshore decision be reviewed?
- Use the agreement's review points and meaningful changes in work, people, access, tools or economics. There is no universal interval established here. Name an owner and keep the supporting evidence current enough for the decision.
Source basis
Measured signals and current operating guidance.
- 01
PNAS / Aksoy and colleagues
The global persistence of work from homeJuly 2025 article, findings and methods reviewed. Latest wave: 16,422 full-time college-educated workers in 40 countries; time comparison: 23 countries. No nearshore performance or causal delivery conclusion.
- 02
Google / DORA
Inside the 2025 DORA reportSeptember 2025 public research summary reviewed. Nearly 5,000 survey respondents; AI use and perceived benefits remain sample-bound. No guaranteed savings or supplier outcome is inferred.
- 03
GitLab Handbook
All-Remote MeetingsCurrent preparation and follow-through guidance reviewed. An operating example, not a measured market shift; fixed schedules, tools and recording practices are not prescribed.
- 04
NCSC
Supply chain security: establish controlRequirements, subcontracting, access and contract-lifecycle principles reviewed. Supports reassessment of changed arrangements, not regional security rankings or a claim that threats recently increased.
- 05
GOV.UK Cabinet Office
The Sourcing PlaybookDelivery assessment and whole-life cost guidance reviewed. Informs equivalent-scope comparison; no government mandate, regional price movement or private contract requirement is generalized.
- 06
Eurostat
Number of ICT specialists in the EU continues to growMay 2026 release and methodology reviewed. Labour Force Survey-derived 2025 employment across the EU economy. It does not measure available developers or nearshore supplier capacity.
Start with one real workflow
A Systems Audit is the usual starting point. If the opportunity is already clear, we can move directly into a focused build.
Show Us the WorkflowStart with the free automation readiness checklistOBSERVEQUANTIFYDECIDEBUILD