Write the gap without naming a solution
A gap is a result that the current team cannot safely deliver under the required constraints. “We need two Magento developers” is a purchasing idea. “Our team cannot complete and test the SAP order flow before the market launch” is a testable gap.
Business outcome: [What must change for customers, staff, or operations?]
Decision date: [When must a provider and team model be approved?]
Delivery horizon: [Is this a bounded milestone, absence cover, or sustained roadmap?]
Current constraint: [Which skill, capacity, access, or ownership is missing?]
Failure impact: [What happens if the gap stays open?]
Evidence of closure: [Which accepted output or measured condition closes the gap?]
Separate platform, integration, delivery, and capacity gaps
| Capability area | Current owner and evidence | Missing result and constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Magento backend | [Name the code owner, modules, review process, and recent relevant work.] | [State the module, API, queue, checkout, upgrade, or security result that is missing.] |
| Storefront | [Name the frontend owner, theme or framework, design system, and performance baseline.] | [State the Hyvä, Luma, headless, accessibility, or compatibility result.] |
| ERP, PIM, and order flows | [Name each system owner and the source of truth for product, price, stock, customer, and order data.] | [State the interface, workflow, data quality, latency, or recovery problem.] |
| Quality and release | [Name the QA lead, test assets, release approver, rollback owner, and incident record.] | [State the missing automation, regression coverage, deployment control, or release capacity.] |
| Architecture and DevOps | [Name the architecture and environment owners, cloud boundary, logs, and deployment path.] | [State the decision, platform constraint, reliability risk, or environment work.] |
| Product and delivery | [Name the backlog owner, analyst, delivery lead, and business acceptance owner.] | [State the missing discovery, requirements, sequencing, coordination, or decision capacity.] |
Do not combine every open problem into one generic “full-stack developer” request. A provider can only propose a credible person or team when each missing result, dependency, and decision owner is visible.
Assign delivery ownership before capacity is added
Use a named person, not only a department. Write “to be named before signature” where the owner is unknown. An unowned decision becomes a hidden provider assumption.
| Decision or control | Named owner | Acceptance or escalation boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Roadmap and backlog priority | [Buyer name and role] | [Who can add, remove, or reorder work?] |
| Solution architecture | [Buyer, provider, or shared names] | [Who approves material design changes and records rejected options?] |
| Code review and merge | [Repository approver] | [Required reviewers, protected branches, and evidence before merge.] |
| Business acceptance | [Buyer process owner] | [Acceptance cases, data, environment, deadline, and rejection route.] |
| Release and rollback | [Release approver] | [Deployment authority, release window, rollback trigger, and evidence.] |
| Security and production access | [Security or platform owner] | [Approval, least privilege, logging, secret handling, and removal.] |
| Continuity and replacement | [Buyer and provider contacts] | [Documentation, handover, replacement standard, and acceptance.] |
Describe the role by decisions and outputs
Verify the proposed people against the named-person role and seniority checklist. Company-level experience does not prove that one proposed person has the required experience.
Make acceptance specific to each output
| Output | Reviewer and evidence | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Code change | [Named reviewer, pull request, automated checks, and review notes.] | [Coding standard, test, security, compatibility, documentation, and merge conditions.] |
| Integration flow | [System owners, mapped data, contract tests, logs, retries, and failure cases.] | [Agreed business cases pass and errors are observable and recoverable.] |
| Storefront change | [Product, design, accessibility, browser, device, and performance evidence.] | Example acceptance: approved behavior and measured thresholds pass on the agreed test set. |
| Architecture decision | [Decision record, options, assumptions, risks, data ownership, and diagram.] | [Named approvers accept the choice and its operating boundary.] |
| Release | [Release checklist, approvals, monitoring, rollback plan, and result record.] | [Release owner confirms the agreed checks and closes or records exceptions.] |
| Handover | [Repository, runbook, access inventory, walkthrough, and knowledge check.] | [The receiving owner can operate, change, and support the delivered work.] |
Record access, knowledge, and exit controls
- Repositories and artifacts: confirm buyer access, ownership, branching rules, documentation location, and build instructions.
- Environment access: list approval owners, least-privilege roles, logs, secret controls, and removal steps.
- Knowledge capture: assign runbooks, decision records, paired work, recorded walkthroughs, and an acceptance owner.
- Team change: define notice, replacement evidence, knowledge-transfer time, access transition, and buyer approval.
- Exit: define final code, documentation, open risks, credentials, devices, licenses, and access removal.
Turn the worksheet into a comparable provider brief
We need to close this Magento or Adobe Commerce team gap: [missing business and technical result]. The required horizon is [dates or sustained period]. The buyer owns [decisions and controls]. The provider owns [decisions and outputs]. Shared decisions are [list and named approvers].
Propose named people for [roles]. For each person, provide role, seniority evidence, relevant recent work, credential verification where required, planned allocation, location, working window, other commitments, and start assumption. Acceptance requires [evidence and pass conditions]. Include access, continuity, replacement, handover, and exit terms. Label every assumption and missing fact.
Use the completed brief with the dedicated Magento developer comparison and apply the GAPFIT-9 method to each proposal.