QA is time and money. The better your QA, the more time you will have and the more money you will make.
Just to caveat again that this is for your part of the industry. That level of detail gets you few benefits if you were Facebook, for example, or a very small startup still doing product validation.
Also to say that "the better your QA the more money you'll make" is a very strong position to take, even in your industry.
Also to say that "the better your QA the more money you'll make" is a very strong position to take, even in your industry.
It is a bit strong, isn't it? I felt that to caveat it might detract from the effectiveness of the point. There does come a point where the software is effectively flawless from the customer's point of view, and doing anything to improve it (including more/better QA) from there doesn't make any more money. But if you reach that point, you know :)
More than that, better QA or better software doesn't actually make you money. As in, you can't make your software twice as good and make twice as much money. It's a lot more nuanced and much more indirect than that.
So certainly you can say "investing X QA hours per month should help reduce customer incidents by 50%, which will reduce churn rate by 30%, increasing MRR by 100% over 1 year, given current churn rates". Or whatever other metrics affect your actual revenue.
Overall, you need to draw a much stronger connection between QA and money, esp if you want to claim a continuous function between them.
Comments
Just to caveat again that this is for your part of the industry. That level of detail gets you few benefits if you were Facebook, for example, or a very small startup still doing product validation.
Also to say that "the better your QA the more money you'll make" is a very strong position to take, even in your industry.
Also to say that "the better your QA the more money you'll make" is a very strong position to take, even in your industry.
It is a bit strong, isn't it? I felt that to caveat it might detract from the effectiveness of the point. There does come a point where the software is effectively flawless from the customer's point of view, and doing anything to improve it (including more/better QA) from there doesn't make any more money. But if you reach that point, you know :)
More than that, better QA or better software doesn't actually make you money. As in, you can't make your software twice as good and make twice as much money. It's a lot more nuanced and much more indirect than that.
So certainly you can say "investing X QA hours per month should help reduce customer incidents by 50%, which will reduce churn rate by 30%, increasing MRR by 100% over 1 year, given current churn rates". Or whatever other metrics affect your actual revenue.
Overall, you need to draw a much stronger connection between QA and money, esp if you want to claim a continuous function between them.