3 ms·

I am currently working with a startup that spends a lot of time on building tests that need to be refactored every sprint because it's early stage and the assum

I am currently working with a startup that spends a lot of time on building tests that need to be refactored every sprint because it's early stage and the assumptions change. I am shocked at the amount of developer-hours spent on tests that need to be disabled / deleted instead of just hiring 1 - 2 super cheap manual testers that just go through the flows days in and out. For me it's a no brainer, if I were CEO / CTO, until product-market-fit is achieved and exponential growth is visible, I'd just outsource Q&A and that's that.

spinningD20 3y ago
When outsourced, you either A) rely on someone in your org to tell them what to test and what the workflows are, ie use them as a warm body/monkey to click on things for you - this is what most people see QA as, which is silly - or B) you rely on the outsourced QA to know your product and know what is important or what all of the edge cases are. If your product is non-trivial in size or scope, ie it is not a cookie-cutter solution, then the testing of your product will also be non-trivial if you want it to work and have a good reputation (including during those all-important live demos, poc's, etc). QA does not mean "click on things and go through the happy path and everything is fine" - not saying you are implying that, but gosh the amount of companies that think it's child's play is crazy.
- ThalesX 3y ago
  > If your product is non-trivial in size or scope Are there many products that reach such sizes without achieving Product Market Fit (PMF)? I feel like after this step is achieved, QA becomes pivotal and involves a great combination of manual and automated procedures. So I agree with you in this regard. But going back to my initial assumption. I think starting a fresh company without PMF and spending a lot on QA until that is achieved, might not be the best approach.

spinningD20 3y ago

When outsourced, you either A) rely on someone in your org to tell them what to test and what the workflows are, ie use them as a warm body/monkey to click on things for you - this is what most people see QA as, which is silly - or B) you rely on the outsourced QA to know your product and know what is important or what all of the edge cases are. If your product is non-trivial in size or scope, ie it is not a cookie-cutter solution, then the testing of your product will also be non-trivial if you want it to work and have a good reputation (including during those all-important live demos, poc's, etc). QA does not mean "click on things and go through the happy path and everything is fine" - not saying you are implying that, but gosh the amount of companies that think it's child's play is crazy.

ThalesX 3y ago
> If your product is non-trivial in size or scope Are there many products that reach such sizes without achieving Product Market Fit (PMF)? I feel like after this step is achieved, QA becomes pivotal and involves a great combination of manual and automated procedures. So I agree with you in this regard. But going back to my initial assumption. I think starting a fresh company without PMF and spending a lot on QA until that is achieved, might not be the best approach.