The Flash Diagnostic turns the meeting into a value-adding diagnostic session. The goal isn't to present solutions, but to map your blind spots — software risks, technical debt, non-compliance, lack of visibility — and, in thirty minutes, derive the measures to put in place.
Nothing is left to chance: we prepare beforehand, dig in during the conversation, and leave with a clear picture and concrete options.
Sent in response to your diagnostic booking, ten minutes to complete. It personalizes the conversation and, above all, already gets you thinking about your own room for improvement. Six maturity dimensions, which are then explored during the conversation.
On its own, this questionnaire is already a guide to reflecting on the maturity of your test process: even if you go no further, you come away with a clearer view of your strengths and blind spots. At worst, consider it a bonus.
The questionnaire isn't re-read: it's explored in depth. For the most critical parts, three probing questions — how, who decides, what impact — until the gray areas surface on their own.
We restate the goal, confirm the time available, and open on context: criticality of the software developed, sector, regulatory constraints.
Block by block, we dig rather than read. It's your teams who put the gaps into words — "we have no defined coverage threshold," "we talk about debt but we don't measure it." That's what makes the reading credible and personal.
We share a cause-and-effect table, filled in live: what the diagnostic reveals on each dimension, and the concrete measures it triggers. No judgment, no grade — decisions.
For each area identified as weak, a direct, measurable lead — kept factual and brief.
If the diagnostic shows it, a low-commitment follow-up: an assessment of your quality on a real project, to turn the diagnostic into measured proof — not a promise.
The findings aren't a grade, they're a cause-and-effect table: what the diagnostic reveals on each dimension directly triggers concrete measures. It's the diagnostic that decides what follows, not the tool.
| What the diagnostic reveals | The measures it triggers |
|---|---|
| Software risks | Prioritize and fix critical areas, strengthen tests on at-risk components, put silent failures under watch. |
| Technical debt | Quantify and locate the debt, plan targeted repayment on high-risk code, set rules to stop it from accumulating. |
| Non-compliance | Bring the code closer to the applicable regulatory requirements, document the evidence expected for the audit, close the most critical gaps first. |
| Lack of visibility | Introduce quality indicators tracked over time, make the state of the code legible from developer to management. |
Once the measures are identified — and only at that point — some benefit from tooling. It's the result of the diagnostic that indicates it: depending on the findings, we may suggest TiCS (continuous code quality analysis) and/or Testwell CTC++ (test coverage measurement). Never the other way around: the tool serves the measure, it doesn't precede it. See the tools.
The best follow-up is the most concrete: measure the weakest dimension on one of your real projects, and turn a hunch into a fact.
Free and with no commitment. Thirty minutes to turn your observations — risks, debt, compliance, visibility — into measures to put in place. You receive the pre-qualification questionnaire as soon as you book.
