Why InterEdu does not publish a price list
Two systems both called an assessment platform can differ by several multiples in the work they require. A multiple-choice system for one subject is a different thing from a system covering many subjects, with written-answer marking, permissions mirroring a school structure, and reporting for three audiences.
A fixed price list is only accurate when the scope is fixed. When scope is undefined, a price list is either too high for a small need or the starting point for later cost creep.
Factor 1: Response types and how they are marked
Marking multiple choice is matching an answer key. Marking written answers needs a workflow: marker allocation, a criteria scale, reconciliation between markers, and a review interface. Marking speaking needs in-browser audio capture and a separate assessment mechanism.
This is usually the factor that steps the cost most visibly, because each marking type is its own business flow rather than a configuration option.
Factor 2: Concurrent candidate volume
A system for 50 concurrent candidates and one for 5,000 differ in architecture, not just in server configuration. The cost sits in design, in load testing against a realistic session scenario, and in operating infrastructure.
State the target number at the start. Raising the load ceiling after the system is built always costs more than designing for it.
Factor 3: How tightly the session is controlled
The invigilation requirements of a classroom quiz and an admissions exam are far apart. Each additional control adds development, adds testing, and adds situations to handle while a session is live.
This is worth thinking through carefully: control beyond the real requirement costs money and makes the candidate experience worse.
Factor 4: Integration with existing systems
Syncing candidate rosters, single sign-on with a school system, pushing results into a learning management system: each integration is its own block of work, and the difficulty depends on the quality of the other system technical documentation.
If your existing system has no API documentation, budget time for discovery before anything else.
Factor 5: Who prepares the content
An item bank is an asset, not a feature. If your organization already holds the content and only needs authoring tools, the cost is far lower than if content has to be standardized from scratch or digitized from paper.
This line is frequently left out of budgets, and it is often the item that takes the client side the most time.
Factor 6: Transfer or managed operation
If your team will take over, the cost includes operating documentation, technical documentation, and training. If the supplier runs it for you, the cost becomes recurring rather than a one-off investment.
The two models have very different total cost over time, so settle this at the start rather than leaving it as a later decision.
Five questions to put to any quote
A good quote answers all five of these. If it does not, the number in it is not yet comparable with another quote.
- What is the target concurrent load, and against what scenario will it be tested?
- Which response types and marking flows are in scope?
- Who owns the source code and the data at the end?
- What does annual operating cost after handover include?
- How are mid-project scope changes handled?
