Organizations with inconsistent quality standards and reporting
Defect grades and metric definitions are unified on one page, and team reports come back in a single format.
QA Process Consulting
A QA consulting service that establishes quality criteria, release gates, and automation scope as one shared system.
- Software QA
- Assessment
- Managed delivery
- Automation
01Overview
Service overview
QA Process Consulting settles quality criteria, release gates, and automation scope, then builds a QA system that runs inside the development process. Release gates are defined together with their pass conditions, so who approved what, on what evidence, can still be explained the same way months later. Fixing the targets and the sequence before the tooling decision avoids the familiar ending where script maintenance costs more than the runs are worth. By changing how the team works and how feedback reaches it, defects surface early and stop arriving all at once at integration.
02Who it fits
Where it fits
Product teams finding most defects late
Examples and acceptance conditions are written with the requirement, filtering out defects caused by differing interpretations early.
Leaders who need a prioritized automation investment plan
We build a staged roadmap starting where the return is largest, in a form that goes straight into a budget review.
03What we deliver
Scope of delivery
01
Quality policy and RACI
The scope of quality work and the responsibility each role carries are written down. A new team or vendor is briefed on the same rules and can join immediately.
02
Automation feasibility and value assessment
Run frequency, failure history, and setup cost are collected for the existing cases to identify automation candidates. You see the investment order before people are spent on low-value targets.
03
Quality-by-design practices
Quality activities are placed into how requirements are written, how code is reviewed, and what a deployment must satisfy. Problems are caught close to where they are created, without adding another validation phase.
How the service works
Evidence connected from requirement to approval
Link requirements, tests, defect actions and approval records so teams judge quality consistently.
Requirements and acceptance criteria
Tests and defect actions
Trace approval evidence
04Why this way
Points of difference
Each point lists the deliverable that backs it.
Priority based on value and maintenance cost
Targets are chosen in the order the maintenance can be sustained, not the order the scripts are easy to write. Run frequency, how often the screen changes, how hard the test data is to prepare, and how long a failure takes to analyse all sit in the same table. As a result, the areas we decide not to automate are documented with the reason.
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 moreTraceable evidence from requirement to release
Links are put in place so the output of quality work does not scatter across documents. A requirement points to its test cases, a test result points to the defect and the fix, and the fix points to the approval record, forming one line you can walk. Nothing has to be reassembled when an audit or an incident review asks for evidence.
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
Global distributed storage, company K — quality criteria and release gates
A North American engineering team and a Korean QA team had to read quality on the same terms.
What we doDefect severity, verdict criteria, and stage release gates were agreed, and reporting was settled into one format.
What it leavesWhat remained is a record that explains, the same way every time, who approved a release on what evidence.
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.
Completed
From undocumented code to a baseline for the next development: verifying an acquired artist platform
The code alone was not enough to start the next development. Through reverse engineering and hands-on verification we documented the current state of the service and left a baseline for building what came next.
09FAQ
Frequently asked questions
The role moves rather than disappears. Repetitive execution shifts to automation and developer tests, and we build the transition plan together so the team concentrates on work that needs judgement: risk design, exploratory testing, and coaching.
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 · 17 min read
AI-generated test cases: what to review before counting them
Review AI-generated test cases first for the evidence behind the requirement, controlled conditions, observable results, and criteria for failure.
Software Quality & Release
2026-08-22 · 13 min read
Besides test results, what should a release decision look at?
Test results are one piece of release evidence, not the verdict. A Release Evidence Matrix, the READY / READY WITH CONDITIONS / HOLD criteria, a residual risk register, and a Release Decision Record.
Software Quality & Release
2026-08-22 · 19 min read
Designing traceability so requirement changes stop losing tests
Give requirements, changes, implementations, tests, and defects stable ids and versions, then re-review the links per change package to surface orphans and stale links.
12Related resources
Resources for this service
Guides and checklists you can use during review and kickoff.
See all resources
Brochures
2026.08.25
The IXC company overview · 2026
What IXC takes on across four practices and what it does not, the order the work runs in, and what gets handed over — in one file.
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.
Guides
2026.08.04
Release decision memo and scenario result sheet
The two documents a pre-release QA review hands over — which fields and columns they carry, and what goes in each one.
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 Process Consulting
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