To make my point
Surely we are all aware how necessary QA is. Especially banks and other financial institutions that are trusted with money that belongs to other people. They are, after all, in an industry that becomes more dependent on software with every day.
However, recent experiences tend to prove that banks are actually neglecting appropriate QA procedures and are paying a big price for that. Let’s take Sainsbury’s Bank for example. There was this widespread failure within their software once that caused many customers without the ability of using their credit cards. This happened within just several month from RBS bank paying around $60 million for a very same failure. Imagine how much would they save if they have invested in QA properly?
What went wrong?
Ages old legacy applications. Or so say the banks. I believe we all here are adult enough to understand that old software may work like a candy if new added features are developed and tested properly, implemented within a nice manner and tested and regression tested and tested again.
Surely software testing does seem like a time-consuming activity that has more expanses in itself that usefulness. Apparently that is happening because nobody notices how much quality QA delivers until something actually breaks due lack of appropriate testing and that something will cost a couple dozen millions.
But testing does not even have to be expensive. The ‘Shift left’ practice tends to reduce costs by 20-30% and is an excellent decision for software developed for Banking purposes as well as legacy application from the same field. It will take some involvement from the stakeholder side and more tests will be running from the very beginning of the project, however the paradox is that development and testing will go faster and will cost less. How is that not a perfect deal?
Check out our related articles: