Most horrible company with no direction - Project Manager Vertis Digital Employee Review

I have had a very positive experience working here. The company has a supportive and collaborative culture where everyone is approachable and willing to help. Management gives employees ownership and trusts them to handle responsibilities independently. One of the best parts is the opportunity to work with modern technologies and international projects, which helped me improve both technically and professionally. The engineering team is talented, and there is a strong focus on delivering quality work while still encouraging learning and experimentation. The work environment is flexible, communication is transparent, and contributions are recognized. It is a good place for people who want hands-on experience and real career growth.

Since the company is growing quickly, some processes are still evolving, and project timelines can occasionally become fast-paced during major releases.

Excellent environment for professionals seeking hands-on experience in firefighting and crisis management. Fast-paced environment that provides broad exposure to modern SaaS platforms, digital transformation initiatives, multiple technologies, vendors, and business stakeholders. The learning curve is steep, largely because there is rarely time for it to be gradual.

The primary project was reportedly nearing completion when I joined. Subsequent events suggested a more optimistic interpretation of "completion" than I was familiar with. Significant implementation, migration, operational readiness, and stabilization work remained outstanding while delivery timelines continued to be highly ambitious. Project maturity and delivery readiness appeared more limited than what I had understood during the hiring process. Several major workstreams involving multiple platforms and vendors were expected to be delivered within a short timeframe despite limited implementation progress and requirements that appeared to evolve faster than the implementation itself. Requirements gathering, documentation, and sign-off processes appeared immature in some areas, resulting in frequent priority shifts, compressed timelines, and teams operating in a reactive firefighting mode. Requirements gathering continued long after development started, ensuring nobody became too attached to the original scope. It was not always clear who owned key decisions or when issues should be escalated. Teams occasionally received conflicting priorities from different stakeholders, which created unnecessary rework and confusion. The organization regularly adopted new technologies and SaaS platforms, but structured onboarding, training, documentation, and SME support did not always keep pace with delivery expectations. Teams were frequently expected to ramp up quickly while simultaneously managing active project commitments. The only thing moving faster than the project timeline was employee turnover. Several experienced team members left during key delivery periods, which made knowledge transfer and continuity more challenging than they needed to be. Resource planning and staffing could be improved to better align project complexity with available experience and capability. Migration planning, environment management, and operational readiness activities often evolved alongside implementation efforts. Earlier agreement on migration requirements and ownership responsibilities would have reduced delivery risk. Many initiatives felt highly experimental. Requirements continued to evolve, platform expertise was still developing, and ownership was not always clear. More consistent processes around testing, deployment, and change management would have reduced uncertainty for delivery teams. Senior management visibility increased significantly during major escalations. Earlier involvement in risk management and project governance could have helped address issues before they became critical.