Offshore performance testing has failed. The experience of many UK organisations has been that it hasn't reduced costs and it hasn't assured quality.
Offshore testing was sold as a logical extension of the trend towards offshore development. While it promised significant advantage, the organisations which adopted offshore testing have experienced difficulties on two levels.
Firstly, the offshoring mandate has made it difficult for IT managers to assure quality with confidence. Early successes in the offshoring of some simple test steps created a Board-level appetite to further exploit the advantages that offshoring could offer. However, as more complex test processes have been moved offshore, IT managers no longer have visibility over whether quality assurance is delivering.
The second area where UK organisations are experiencing difficulties has been financial, in that they have failed to achieve the anticipated cost savings.
Offshore testing has been promoted to UK organisations using the same arguments that were used for offshore development – that the ready availability of low-cost technical expertise can generate significant reductions in costs. It is clear from recent experience that these cost reductions are not being achieved. Day rate differentials have narrowed rapidly. More importantly, crude comparison of day rate costs has ignored unit labour productivity – typically more people are required, testing takes longer and more rework is required. The end result is more days spent to deliver the same, or poorer quality of service.
To address these difficulties, client organisations need to refine and adapt their approach to testing, keeping the value-adding elements onshore. Our latest White Paper, “Better Onshore than Unsure” explores why offshore testing has failed and what you should do about it. It is available for download <<here>>