What are effective ways to communicate the risks of not testing to stakeholders?

Actually, this can be done implicitly when doing thr project scope- at very early stage and under a false flag name, when stakeholders are still fresh- just describe the test and put it as a risk + attach monetary value and prioritize it in project schedule or backlog. It wipp be performed without hassle 2) cant see that resistance happening in agile

Benefits of testing include ensuring software reliability, identifying defects early, improving user experience, meeting regulatory standards, optimizing performance, and facilitating continuous improvement. Communicating the risks of not testing to stakeholders involves highlighting potential defects, compromised user satisfaction, increased post-release costs, security vulnerabilities, and damage to reputation, ultimately impacting business success and credibility.

The risks of not testing enough E.G UK Post Office. Any C-board member carries compliance responsibility. One can never do enough testing. Instead of seeing testing as an overhead it is an asset to use across the compliance/assurance narrative, legal and regulatory processes but also results used to generate news worthy content across the mktg mix. Managed in the right way, even negative result can have a +ve spin.

In the Persian language is a proverb: "Brighter than the sun" I think the benefits of testing are brighter than the sun! An incident is the result of a feature without testing.

There can be many benefits such as: - it can identify some undiscovered bugs can cause crashes and unusual behaviour in the final product - Can save you from poor user experience, preventing user dissatisfaction - Helps reduce chances of security breaches, thereby minimizing the risk of putting user data at risk - Can save reputation of the organisation, preventing potential loss of customer trust - Without proper/prior testing, development resources may be wasted on fixing issues which could have been identified and resolved earlier in the development process

First and foremost determine whether testing is a mandatory requirement. A clear example is if your customer has specified a particular material grade for a product you intend to supply. If this is the case you have a legal requirement to validate material supplied with a test certificate if you intend to supply. If you do not have a test facility or laboratory, then you must ensure that you either receive a test certificate from the material supplier or send samples of the materials yourself to an external laboratory. Your responsibility does not end there. In the UK all laboratories must be UKAS Certified in order for their Test Certificates are valid.

Depend on where your Quality level is, if you are a six sigma operation you don't have to test 100% of your products, incoming through supplier quality program and outgoing product with internal testing. Also what industry are you in? Some are regulated and or their products impact people lives, nobody wants a recall or a fatality in the market place. Improve your processes and internal Quality first, then maybe you can start talking about reducing testing.

Sharing below information 1.Testing Resources Breakdown: Clearly outline the time, effort, and costs involved in testing, using easy-to-understand charts or tables. 2.Risk Mitigation Analysis: Detail how testing will eliminate or minimize specific risks, supported by relevant examples or case studies. 3.Current System State: Provide a current assessment of the application or system, highlighting existing issues and potential impacts. 4. Historical Examples: Use past instances where lack of testing led to negative outcomes, such as system failures or customer dissatisfaction. 5. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Present a straightforward comparison of the costs of testing versus the potential financial and reputational costs of not testing.

Key benefits of testing in my experience are: 1. Significant Tangible ROI, increase in Efficiency and end users satisfaction 2. Strategically allowing Shift Left approach and early identification of defects, significant cost savings up to 6X per defect fix. 3. Reduction in rework efforts and costs savings of dev team, it may be >30% in some use cases 4. Increase in market leadership with quality delivery and customer satisfaction 5. Frequent release of new features and services for users, providing as edge to competition. 6. Innovating IT function with culture of quality and brining Quality engineering tools for automation, etc.

Discussing the potential cost implications can be a highly effective way to engage stakeholders,especially when they are focused on time. Talking in terms of potential risks to the product's credibility and financial impact makes testing more tangible. Negotiating scope and coverage based on priority is a practical approach, but it's essential to convey that skipping testing altogether can lead to significant issues, from minor bugs to major flaws that could result in substantial financial loss or damage to the product's reputation. Highlighting these risks helps stakeholders understand that while time is a critical factor, the long-term costs of releasing an untested product can far outweigh the immediate benefits of rushing to market.

There can be many consequences such as: - Without testing, some undiscovered bugs can cause crashes and unusual behaviour in the final product

It is quite key to communicate the drawbacks and impact of not doing testing may bring: 1.Negative Impact on brand good will 2.Losing product adoption with users due to ineffective user experience 3.Burning significant costs on rework, which inflates up to 6X times compared to issue fixes early in dev cycle. 4. Delays in releasing competitive or new features in market, etc. Many other such issues should be thought through, which negatively impacts if thorough testing approach is not planned in Software Quality Strategy.

Maybe this statement is enough!! An incident is the result of a feature without testing. before, when and after the test write every scenario

The costs of not testing can be substantial, leading to increased post-release defect fixing expenses, potential legal and regulatory penalties, customer dissatisfaction, loss of revenue due to system failures, and damage to the organization's reputation, ultimately outweighing the upfront investment in testing and quality assurance.

In August 2012 a bug in Knight Capital Group Inc. software caused over 440M$ losses because of the buying spree caused by an incorrect deployment. Events of such magnitude are rare, however, they illustrate how important it is not only to ship features fast, but also to have robust testing, code review, and deployment processes because, at the end of the day, these are necessary investments.

Negotiation would be in terms of types of testing. We can compromise on types of testing- system integration, Unit testing, regression testing, performance testing, and user acceptance testing. Decide on the type of testing what is more relevant to which modules and go from there

Negotiate tests? That is not done anywhere. As responsible and professional person you wont participate in that. But you could optimize the test to be accurate in terms of cost and time, break it down if possible so part of trsts are done in different time and resource allocations