Who It Is For
Teams with stable, repeatable high-value journeys and enough product, environment and test-data access to maintain useful automated checks.
We assess product risk and recurring release work, then propose automation for stable, valuable checks while retaining human exploratory testing for risks that need judgement.
We assess product risk and recurring release work, then propose automation for stable, valuable checks while retaining human exploratory testing for risks that need judgement.
The work starts with the product, its critical journeys and the consequences of failure — not with a preferred testing tool. We review the current delivery process and available test environments, then define which API, integration, browser or end-to-end checks are suitable for automation and which still need hands-on investigation.
Where automation is justified, the engagement can cover test design, implementation, CI reporting, failure triage and documentation. Supported browsers, devices, environments, access, test data and maintenance ownership are agreed in the scope because a useful regression suite must evolve with the product.
Prioritise checks around critical journeys, likely failure modes and the impact of defects.
Automate suitable service behaviour and integration boundaries using agreed environments and test data.
Cover stable, repeatable user journeys across the browser matrix defined for the project.
Surface useful test results in the delivery workflow without treating one metric as proof of quality.
Separate product defects, environment problems and flaky checks so failures remain actionable.
Retain exploratory review and document how the agreed suite is run, investigated and maintained.
Teams with stable, repeatable high-value journeys and enough product, environment and test-data access to maintain useful automated checks.
Automation is not the right first step for rapidly changing flows, undefined expected behaviour or risks that primarily require human usability and exploratory judgement.
Illustrative example: rank checkout risks, automate stable API and browser checks for the agreed matrix, report them in CI, retain exploratory review, and document failure triage and maintenance ownership.
Product risks, journeys & current coverage
Automation candidates, environments & ownership
Checks, reporting & delivery integration
Triage, documentation & agreed handover
No. Automation is useful for repeatable checks, while exploratory testing and human judgement remain important for new behaviour, usability and unexpected risks. We plan the two together.
That depends on business risk, release frequency, workflow stability and the cost of a failure. We normally assess critical repeatable journeys and service boundaries before proposing a sequence.
Maintenance ownership is agreed before implementation. It may sit with your team, continue under a separate MakerWeb plan, or be shared with clear responsibilities and access.
Tell us about your systems, delivery goals and current challenges so we can discuss a suitable scope.