Browse by type
QAble runs a focused, time-boxed QA audit — six-dimension scorecard, risk register, quick-win plan, and leadership readout — designed for CTOs, heads of QA, and operating partners who need a defendable view of quality before the next budget, deal, or release decision.
QA audit shapes we run:
CTOs, heads of QA, audit committees, and operating partners engage QAble when the next decision — budget, release, deal, or integration — requires evidence that does not yet exist.
Most QA improvement programmes stall in the same place — at the conversation about what to do first. A focused audit replaces that conversation with a written scorecard, a risk register, and a plan leadership can fund inside a single quarter.
Common signals you need an audit, not a longer debate:
The audit is intentionally not a long consulting engagement. It is the diagnostic that lets one cleanly happen — or, often, lets you fund and execute the quick wins yourself first.
Time-Boxed
Fourteen working days from kick-off to leadership readout. No scope creep, no surprise extensions.
Six-Dimension
Strategy, process, automation, tooling, coverage, reporting — the same dimensions, every audit, every report.
Decision-Sized
Output sized to leadership decisions — risk register, quick wins, and a 12-month investment plan you can fund.
The audit assesses the same six dimensions every engagement — strategy, process, automation, tooling, coverage, and reporting — so findings are comparable across teams, products, and prior audits.
Is there a written test strategy? Does it match how the team actually ships? Are release acceptance gates documented? Are quality KPIs defined?
Audit checks
How does work move from feature-ready to release sign-off? Where does the process stall? How is severity decided, and by whom?
Audit checks
Where does automation live, who owns it, and how trustworthy is it? Is the suite layered correctly, or pushed to the UI by default?
Audit checks
Is the toolchain fit for purpose, or accumulated by historical preference? Are licences justified? Is the integration story coherent?
Audit checks
Is coverage placed where the risk is? Are critical paths protected? Are integration boundaries tested? What is documented vs assumed?
Audit checks
Can engineering, product, and leadership read quality status from the same data? Are KPIs trended over time? Are reports actually read?
Audit checks
Every audit follows the same five-phase schedule — discovery, deep dive, scoring, plan, readout — so leadership knows exactly what is happening on which day, and the engagement cannot drift past its time box.
Stakeholder interviews, access provisioning, current-state inventory.
Activities
Phase 1 of 5
Six-dimension assessment — strategy, process, automation, tooling, coverage, reporting.
Activities
Phase 2 of 5
Maturity scorecard, risk register, quick-win identification, prioritisation.
Activities
Phase 3 of 5
12-month investment roadmap and leadership readout deck.
Activities
Phase 4 of 5
Live readout to leadership, written report handed over, Q&A.
Activities
Phase 5 of 5
A six-stage rhythm inside the 14-day window — covering charter, evidence gathering, synthesis, scoring, planning, and readout.
Document the audit scope, sponsor, and exclusions; provision read-only access to tooling and pipelines; schedule stakeholder interviews across engineering, product, and operations.
Pull suite metrics, pipeline telemetry, defect data, test management exports, and documentation — building an evidence pack that is independent of self-reporting.
Synthesise evidence and interview signal into a per-dimension picture — strategy, process, automation, tooling, coverage, and reporting — with documented rationale per finding.
Score each dimension against the QA Maturity Model, register findings as risks with severity and impact, and surface the quick wins worth funding inside the next 90 days.
Build a phased 12-month investment plan with sequencing, owners, KPIs, and dependencies — sized to leadership decisions, not to consulting renewal.
Live readout to leadership on day 14 — scorecard, risks, quick wins, and plan handed over in writing, with a follow-up advisory window for clarifying questions.
Every audit is anchored in the same set of frameworks — vendor-neutral, evidence-led, and aligned with the language audit committees and leadership already use.
Six-dimension assessment framework, levels 1–5
Findings prioritised by likelihood and business impact
Cost-of-quality framework that ties findings to investment cases
Vendor-neutral scoring across cost, fit, and operational risk
CI/CD telemetry, suite stability, and runtime analysis
Standardised audit artefacts that auditors and boards already understand
Four artefacts handed over on day 14 — written, structured, and ready for engineering, product, audit, and board audiences without translation.
These are the patterns most often present at the start of an audit. None are unusual — most cost more than the audit itself, and the value of the audit is making them visible enough to fix.
A written test strategy exists, but sprint behaviour ignores it — coverage choices, severity calls, and release gates are decided ad hoc.
CriticalAutomation pushed almost entirely to the UI layer — slow, flaky, and the first to fail when the pipeline gets serious. Lower-layer coverage missing entirely.
CriticalTest coverage volume is high but no one can name the ten user journeys whose failure would block a release — testing optimises for breadth, not risk concentration.
HighSeverity ratings bargained between product and engineering before release, instead of decided against a documented rubric — high-impact defects silently downgraded.
HighMultiple test management, automation, and reporting tools doing similar work — licences accumulating, integration drifting, and team time spent on tooling not testing.
HighSprint and release reports produced on schedule but not read — engineering, product, and leadership look at different numbers, and quality conversations default to opinion.
MediumAudits are commissioned by stakeholders whose decisions need a defendable, third-party view — and whose timelines do not allow for a long consulting engagement.
Need a defendable view of QA capability and a written investment case that survives the next budget cycle.
Outcomes designed for this audience
Need an objective, vendor-neutral assessment of a portfolio company's QA capability — for diligence, post-acquisition integration, or value-creation planning.
Outcomes designed for this audience
Need an independent third-party scorecard to anchor the next conversation with engineering, product, and finance — and to differentiate facts from internal opinion.
Outcomes designed for this audience
Need an independent, evidence-based audit that aligns with the language and rigour the committee already expects from financial and security audits.
Outcomes designed for this audience
Three audit shapes covering the standard 14-day engagement, a focused release readiness audit, and a pre-acquisition QA diligence pack.
14 working days
A focused six-dimension audit producing a maturity scorecard, risk register, quick-win plan, and 12-month investment roadmap — handed over in a leadership readout on day 14.
Deliverables
Best for
5–7 working days
A focused audit ahead of a single major release — coverage, regression posture, defect register, performance smoke, and a documented release recommendation memo.
Deliverables
Best for
2–4 weeks
An independent QA diligence engagement ahead of a deal — assessing target capability, technical debt, automation footprint, and post-deal integration risk.
Deliverables
Best for
Common questions from leaders evaluating a QA audit engagement.
Questions covered
QAble runs a focused, time-boxed QA audit — six-dimension scorecard, risk register, quick-win plan, and leadership readout — designed for leaders who need a defendable view of quality before the next budget, deal, or release decision.
Direct access to QAble's audit principals.
Response within 24 hours
