The typical path to a failed automation project
The common failure goes like this: the quote is "we'll advise after a consultation" → you see the screens for the first time after signing → it's not what you imagined → every change costs extra → after delivery, the maintenance vendor disappears → a system nobody uses.
It isn't a technology problem. It's a structure where you sign before seeing anything and the product is abandoned after it's built. So the selection criteria should be about contract structure, not portfolios.
Seven criteria — what to ask before signing
- ① Published prices — is there a list price on the website? "Whatever we say" pricing means the side with less leverage loses.
- ② Demo first — do they show a real, working screen before the contract?
- ③ Operations responsibility — does the contract say who handles servers, errors and improvements after delivery?
- ④ Data ownership — is data export guaranteed if you cancel?
- ⑤ Per-seat pricing — does the fee rise as staff or customers grow?
- ⑥ New feature cost — a new quote for every feature, or included in the monthly fee?
- ⑦ Cancellation terms — long-term lock-in, or free to leave?
If a vendor's answers to these seven are vague, it's safer to pass.
MAEUM's answers — all in writing
To the same questions, MAEUM answers: ① every price published (scoping ₩250K, SaaS build from ₩700K + ₩490K / ₩990K / ₩1.49M/mo, SI from ₩2.5M) ② free demo — sign only if you like it ③ on SaaS (managed), we take responsibility for servers, errors and improvements every month and prove it with a monthly report ④ data is yours, export supported ⑤ no per-seat pricing ⑥ feature consultation and building included in the monthly fee — no separate development invoices ⑦ no long-term lock-in, cancel freely. SEO and AI-search visibility work is included in every build at no charge.
KRW is authoritative; USD figures are approximate. SEO and AI-search visibility work is included in every build at no charge. The demo is free — try it, and sign only if you like it.