We protect your critical business flows with automated tests: written acceptance criteria, end-to-end scenarios, a regression suite and automated pre-release runs. What an update broke should be learnt from the tests, not from a customer.
The most expensive bug in a piece of software is the one found in production, by a customer. Slightly cheaper is the one the team notices after go-live. The cheapest is the one caught while the change is being made. Test automation is the method for reversing that order; its aim is not to bring the bug count to zero but to pull the place where bugs are found further back.
The most common picture in practice is this: the system works, the team adds a new feature, and a week later it turns out something has broken somewhere else entirely. The broken part is usually the part nobody thought had been touched. Manual testing struggles to catch this, because retesting the whole system after every change is impossible in practice. Manual testing is enough at initial roll-out; as the system grows, it falls short.
Our approach is to be selective, not exhaustive. Trying to test every line produces a high-maintenance pile of tests that nobody trusts. Instead, the business-critical flows are identified: from order entry to invoicing, from goods receipt to stock movement, from progress-payment calculation to the payroll file. These flows are tested end to end, so the places where breakage genuinely costs money and reputation are protected.
There is one situation where this work is especially valuable: layers that write alongside an existing enterprise system. When the main system is updated or a version upgrade is applied, understanding what the layer alongside it has lost normally takes days. If the critical flows are protected by tests, the same question is answered in minutes: which integration still works, which field has changed, which record no longer opens. That lets you take the upgrade decision with knowledge rather than fear.
Companies with custom software running alongside their existing enterprise system. Being able to see quickly what broke when the main system is updated is, in these architectures, a direct matter of risk management.
Teams doing in-house development without an established testing discipline. In these teams every release is a source of tension, and over time a habit of avoiding change takes root.
Businesses that have taken over an old piece of software and have to touch its insides. Here the tests double as documentation: they put in writing what the system is supposed to do.
Businesses that install their product at other companies. When different configurations run at different customers, every release becomes a gamble without a regression suite.
When a piece of work counts as finished is put in writing. The first step of test automation is not a tool but a clarified expectation; behaviour without a written criterion cannot be tested, and the argument about it never ends.
The flows that are most expensive to the business are tested from start to finish: from data entry to verifying the output. The scope is deliberately kept narrow; a broad, unmaintained test suite can be more harmful than having no tests at all.
Bugs that have occurred before are turned into tests. The same bug is prevented from appearing a second time, and over time the suite becomes the system's real memory.
The data the tests will run on is prepared, and every run starts from the same starting point. Where testing must use live data, personal data is masked. Without a test data regime, the tests quickly become unreliable.
Tests run automatically when code changes and before a release is cut; the results are reported to the team. Manually run tests get forgotten; automated runs take the discipline out of any one person's hands.
The steps that produce a reported bug are recorded and turned into a test. A bug that cannot be reproduced cannot be fixed; this step removes the single most time-consuming argument.
Together we work out which flow is the most expensive to break. The ranking is commercial, not technical: which flow loses money, deliveries or reputation. Coverage starts from the top of that list.
What the selected flows are supposed to do is put in writing. This step usually reveals that different people on the team hold different expectations; resolving that divergence is valuable in itself.
The environment the tests will run in is set up and the test data is prepared. If a copy is taken from live data, personal data is masked. Tests written without this foundation are abandoned within a short time.
The tests are written and connected to automated runs. Who receives the results and what happens when a red result arrives is defined. A test result nobody looks at is the same as no test.
Habits are handed over to the team: a new bug is first turned into a test, a new feature starts with acceptance criteria. Test automation is not an installation; it is a discipline that is kept up.
No — and that should not be the goal. A broad, unmaintained test suite breaks constantly, nobody looks at it, and in time it is ignored entirely. Our approach is to protect the flows that are most expensive to the business and to widen coverage gradually and deliberately. A small number of trusted tests is worth more than a large number of distrusted ones.
It can. Even without access to the source code, end-to-end tests can be written from the interface and the data side; what the system is supposed to do is defined from the outside. In inherited systems this work is doubly valuable, because the tests also document the system's behaviour.
If the critical flows are protected by tests, then largely yes: the update is applied in a copy environment, the tests are run, and what broke is listed within a short time. That lets you take the upgrade decision by measurement, not guesswork. For areas the tests do not cover we cannot give the same assurance, and we define the coverage in writing from the start.
They will, and we do not hide it. Every test is an asset that must be updated when the system changes. That is why the scope must be kept narrow and valuable, the tests must be written so they are not brittle, and there must be no hesitation about deleting tests that have become redundant. A testing approach that ignores the maintenance burden collapses within a few months.
The best time is the moment the system suffers its first critical failure; the second-best time is now. If a new project is starting, beginning with acceptance criteria is the cheapest route. In a large existing system, starting by turning the last three serious bugs into tests is a beginning that is both fast and persuasive.
Written acceptance criteria; an end-to-end test suite covering the critical flows; a regression set built from past bugs; a repeatable test data regime; automated pre-release runs with reporting; and handover documentation describing how to keep the tests going. Everything produced, test suites and source code included, belongs to you.
In a 30-minute discovery call we listen to what you need and tell you honestly whether custom development or an off-the-shelf product is the better answer.
We run security audits on delivered or inherited applications: authorisation and data access flaws, authentication weaknesses, injection risks, secrets and key management, dependency vulnerabilities. We also work on the side of closing the findings.
Details →We assess your existing software estate independently: an architecture map, a technical debt inventory with prioritisation, dependency and vendor lock-in risk, the team's way of working and a realistic roadmap. It is a piece of work that sets direction without writing code.
Details →We turn a working piece of software written for a single client into a sellable product: separating the core from the client-specific layer, a configuration engine, multi-tenant data isolation, installation and release management, and subscription infrastructure.
Details →We make it visible from one place where demand and supply diverge, which supplier is holding to its promised date and where the goods are waiting right now. The aim is not to install a new ERP; it is to gather the off-chain information your current system does not know and tie the planning decision to data.
Details →We bring together in a single chain where a request came from, which quotes were obtained, who approved what, and whether the invoice that arrives matches the order. Procurement runs in the system rather than in people's memories; every step can be read back afterwards along with its reasoning. Your existing ERP stays where it is.
Details →We bring together in one record who the supplier is, when each of its documents expires, how well it kept to its delivery dates last year and which price agreement is in force. The approved supplier list stops being an Excel file. A supplier portal connects to the same structure as an option.
Details →
