Like most things in life, we face some pretty tough choices when developing test case management software for customers around the globe.

  • On the one hand, we’re incentivized to develop the most comprehensive QA testing tools possible in order to increase market share
  • On the other hand, we’re incentivized to invest in our core competencies to ensure we maintain a competitive advantage in our areas of expertise

Although the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, we try to be realistic – both about the needs of our users and our ability to satisfy those needs.

QA Testing Tools – How Less Can Be More

You see, we actually do provide comprehensive solutions. As part of our test case management software suite, we offer a bug tracking and requirements modules – areas outside our core specialties. We do this since many customers don’t need all the bells and whistles of a dedicated, standalone tracker or a requirements management tool. They simply want something that’s good enough and gets the job done.

At the same time, these ancillary modules are by no means the best solutions on the market. There exist superior automation tools, bug trackers, and requirements management solutions out there.

And that’s where the difficult choice comes in…do we compete on all fronts or do we cooperate as much as possible?

Competing on all fronts is the path that most big vendors pursue when offering application life management (ALM) solutions. When developing QA testing tools, they offer the “best” one-size-fits-all solution that brings together many individual components. However, most of these pre-packaged components end up being inferior to their dedicated, standalone counterparts.

ALM vendors essentially charge a premium for convenience – not quality.

At Testuff, we prefer providing our customers with the best possible experience that we can. And this sometimes means chasing away business by cooperating with rivals.

Rather than give our customers “comprehensive” albeit “inferior” QA testing tools, we focus on integration when and where it makes sense.

Although we have solid, native bug tracker and a requirements solution, it’s actually in our best interest to promote rival, standalone solutions that mesh nicely with our test case management software.

On the surface, it seems counterintuitive. How could chasing business away bring us more business?

The closest analogy I can come up with is the relationship between McDonalds and Coca-Cola. The fast food behemoth could have probably developed its own in-house beverage – it certainly has the resources. But ultimately, it makes more sense to partner with an established player. Let Coke focus on Coke while McDonald’s continues to specialize in hamburgers and franchising.

Health, nutrition, and wellness aside – the consumer is better off under this arrangement. So are McDonalds and Coke.

Thankfully, none of our QA testing tools will lead to type II diabetes or kidney failure. But the basic message still applies.

We continue to develop vertically and horizontally to ensure that our test case management software solutions are the best on the market. Whenever and wherever appropriate, we integrate with other solutions to help round out our offerings.

This approach chases some business away in the short-term. But it also ensures that our customers enjoy the best testing experience possible – a strategy that actually brings us more business over the long-term.