Pros
The company has a remote-first working policy, and is very open to staff finding work arrangements to suit their personal lives, including staff moving internationally while remaining employed. I did not feel pressured to work long hours, although I understand that some others did feel so, particularly those managing two or three teams simultaneously. There was an active culture of sharing newly acquired scientific knowledge activity in the market the company saw itself in. Many staff were very highly motivated by the company's role in the climate change sector. The long-term aims of the company are noble, and would also be unique in the market if they were made achievable.
Cons
Cervest hired heavily in research staff, while in the phase of needing to develop high-quality software products quickly. In some teams developing data products, the ratio of researchers to software engineers was 3:1, leading to significant issues with burnout, with engineers stuck constantly fixing problems caused by inexperienced staff. The company had struggled to find product-market fit, and to respond to customer feedback. Teams building the data products being sold were discouraged from trying to get customer feedback or metrics; business development and user researchers were told not to engage with these backend teams. Lead times of 6+ months for software/data releases were typical. The process for releasing new data involved several handovers and manual steps to reach production, with very high coupling between the teams involved. Cervest struggled with focus, despite it being used as a buzzword. Multiple independent products were being actively developed before the first gained market traction. There were unresolved disagreements about how the company should position itself in the market, and in which areas it wished to compete - upper level management appeared to believe in competing everywhere at once. Communication was a significant problem at the company. It was common for changes to be announced, only for managers expected to implement the change to have no understanding of what the changes would entail. The decision to have an increasing fraction of high-level management in the US, while most of the company was in Europe, limited the available communication bandwidth.