Teams with a fixed launch date and limited QA capacity
We set the validation scope backwards from the launch date and scale the team up week by week from kickoff.
QA Outsourcing
A QA outsourcing service where a dedicated team owns strategy, execution, defect reporting, and release evidence.
- Software QA
- Assessment
- Managed delivery
- Automation
01Overview
Service overview
QA Outsourcing puts a dedicated team on strategy, execution, defect management, and release evidence as one continuous line of work. You get a validation function for exactly as long as you need it, with no hiring or training, and the test assets and acceptance criteria stay with your team when the engagement ends.
02Who it fits
Where it fits
Organizations where regression testing slows delivery
We take over the pre-release regression runs developers were doing, so the product team stays on feature work.
Leaders who need independent release evidence
From outside the delivery organization we compile results and residual risk into a report the approver reads directly.
03What we deliver
Scope of delivery
01
Test strategy and scope
Deciding what gets validated and how far, based on product risk and the release calendar. Even with limited people and time, the critical journeys are covered in the right order.
02
Manual and exploratory testing
Scripted case execution runs alongside exploratory sessions that dig into the product without a script. Defects that only appear in conditions no specification described are still found before release.
03
Defect and release-readiness reporting
Every defect is logged with its severity and reproduction conditions, and release readiness is reported on a fixed cadence. Approvers come to the meeting reading the same evidence.
How the service works
Preserve product context as delivery capacity changes
A consistent lead maintains criteria and history while the squad adapts execution and gathers release evidence.
Maintain criteria with a dedicated lead
Scale execution to demand
Report defects and remaining risks
04Why this way
Points of difference
Each point lists the deliverable that backs it.
A dedicated QA squad that scales with demand
The same QA lead maintains product knowledge and defect history throughout the engagement. Testers join or leave the squad as demand changes between intensive regression testing and stabilization. Consistent acceptance criteria keep release-readiness reports grounded in the same evidence as the team changes size.
Backed by
- Risk map and validation priorities
- Test strategy and acceptance criteria
Client work · Artist platform
Artist platform, company A — reverse-engineering undocumented code, then verifying all of it
We reverse-engineered the code to recover the requirements, then verified every function against what we recovered.
Learn moreRelease decisions backed by evidence
We document open defect severity, untested areas, temporary workarounds, and residual risk in a consistent format. This gives release approvers the evidence to decide READY, READY WITH CONDITIONS, or HOLD. When we recommend holding a release, we also specify the conditions that must be met before the decision is reviewed.
Backed by
- Execution report and defect log
- Reusable test assets and a handover guide
Client work · Travel product management
Travel product management, company M — collector load and data consistency
We put load on the collector to find where it gives way, and checked consistency between the database and what the collector returned.
Learn more05How to start
From first call to kickoff
Every stage ends with an agreed scope and a deliverable in your hands.
Step 01
Assess risk
We review product flows and the release calendar together and name the highest-impact failure points within five business days of kickoff.
DeliverableRisk map and validation priorities
Step 02
Design evidence
We link requirements, tests, defects, and the release decision in one traceability sheet and fix the acceptance criteria within two weeks of delivery starts.
DeliverableTest strategy and acceptance criteria
Step 03
Execute and improve
We run validation against the agreed criteria and report defects and residual risk weekly in one fixed format.
DeliverableExecution report and defect log
Step 04
Hand over and embed
We hand test assets and working practices to the internal team and stay available for questions for four weeks afterwards.
DeliverableReusable test assets and a handover guide
06Contract options
Ways to work together
- Remote delivery
07Service levels
Service levels
5business days
Risk map fixed after kickoff
Weekly
Defect and residual-risk report
4weeks
Questions answered after handover
Kids audio platform, company K — fifteen months of dedicated QA
We owned QA for fifteen months on a sound-first audio content platform for infants and children.
What we doTest strategy, execution, and defect reporting sat with us; some 400 regression cases were built up as an asset and every release was verified against the same standard.
What it leavesOver fifteen months, some thirty releases shipped on the same verdict criteria, and the test assets passed to the in-house team at closeout.
Artist platform, company A — reverse-engineering undocumented code, then verifying all of it
The development work we inherited had no documentation, only code.
What we doWe reverse-engineered the code to recover the requirements, then verified every function against what we recovered.
What it leavesWhat the product does, and how, went into documentation, and the point top-up and management feature was built on top of it.
Travel product management, company M — collector load and data consistency
About 1,900 travel products were being maintained by hand, one spreadsheet row at a time.
What we doWe put load on the collector to find where it gives way, and checked consistency between the database and what the collector returned.
What it leavesThe failures we found were in the data, not the features, and product-change handling now runs on its own on top of that.
Global test tool, company T — Japanese localization QA for a no-code test tool
A no-code test automation tool was heading for its Japanese launch and needed a team to own the localization verification.
What we doWe built and ran some 1,000 Japanese verification cases, hunting the places where wording and behavior diverge.
What it leavesSome 150 localization defects were caught before launch over seven months, and the verification cases remain as an asset for the next version.
Mobile app, company R — pre-release app security and server verification
An iOS and Android app heading for release needed its security checked from a position independent of the builders.
What we doWe verified the app and its servers together against some 70 security check items, reporting defects with severity and reproduction steps.
What it leavesSome 20 defects were found across the app and servers, and every one was confirmed fixed before release.
Ongoing
Unbroken from broadcast to transaction: building an auction-format live commerce service
Building the broadcast and the auction alone does not complete a transaction. Cloud, notifications, payments, and points were connected within the same launch.
Completed
What matters more than the time difference is one quality standard: QA for global distributed storage
What mattered more than the time difference was a shared quality standard. We aligned verification and reporting criteria with a North American development team and left automation and performance testing assets behind.
Ongoing
Rebuilding a service already in operation: how a fuel delivery platform was stabilized
Not just fixing frequent errors one at a time. QA findings became the order of remedial development, connected to weekly releases and operations.
09FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Remote delivery is the default and on-site work is available when needed. If the test environment is reachable only from your internal network, we agree the account scope and the data that must not leave first, then set the on-site headcount and period.
We divide ownership first: what the in-house team keeps and what we take over is written down, while defect severity criteria and the reporting format stay unified so the release decision rests on one set of evidence.
Yes. We weigh run frequency against maintenance cost and automate the highest-priority journeys first, replacing volatile screen areas with API-level checks or leaving them to manual validation.
You receive the deliverable listed for each stage exactly as it is. Reports come as a document plus the underlying data, and test cases and automation scripts are handed over together with repository access.
Remote delivery is the default, and on-site work is also available. If the test environment is accessible only from your internal network, we first define account access and data-export restrictions, then agree on on-site staffing and duration.
We report defects and remaining risks weekly in a consistent format. Each defect includes severity and reproduction conditions, alongside release readiness, so approvers can decide from the same evidence.
We share the findings from the first stage, then agree scope and schedule on that basis before delivery. A finished request for proposal is not required: the current environment and the outcome you want are enough to start.
Software Quality & Release
2026-09-26 · 19 min read
Turning production errors into regression tests for the next release
To turn a production error into a regression test, extract the conditions needed to reproduce it, define expected behavior, and verify that the faulty version violates that expectation while the fixed version satisfies it.
Software Quality & Release
2026-09-26 · 21 min read
Logged in, but seeing another customer's orders: multi-tenant authorization testing
Multi-tenant authorization tests must go beyond changing users and roles.
Software Quality & Release
2026-06-11 · 15 min read
What should set regression test scope, if not the size of the code change?
A Change Impact × Regression Scope Matrix — twelve axes across reach, uncertainty, and controllability — for choosing Focused, Expanded, or Broad regression, plus a decision record form.
12Related resources
Resources for this service
Guides and checklists you can use during review and kickoff.
See all resources
Guides
2026.09.04
A guide to choosing a QA outsourcing partner · 2026
What to look at when handing QA to an outside team, and which lines in a proposal or contract to read first, across six axes.
Brochures
2026.09.04
Software QA services overview · 2026
What IXC takes on across six QA services, the order the work runs in, and the deliverable that leaves each stage.
Guides
2026.09.10
Change-based regression test scope workbook
Select regression tests from a change's impact candidates, record reasons for exclusion, and connect unresolved conditions with execution results.
Contact
Contact us
Tell us your current environment and target outcome, and our team will review it and reply.
Direct line
Phone lines are open weekdays 09:00–18:00
ServiceQA Outsourcing
Collection and use of personal information
- Purpose · Responding to and following up on this inquiry
- Items · Name, company, work email, message, visit source (first page visited, referring site domain, campaign parameters)
- Retention · 36 months from the date consent is given
You may decline; the inquiry cannot be submitted without consent.
More ways to explore