Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15

Publication Date: 06 Jan 2015 | Product code: IT0019-003398
Thomas Reuner
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting
an Outsourced Testing Service
Provider, 2014–15

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider, 2014–15
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 2
Summary
Catalyst
The emergence of comprehensive outsourced testing of software applications, in which a service
provider assumes end-to-end responsibility for centralized testing functions, is accelerating. Yet this
approach is not clearly defined and there is a lack of clarity around what terminology to use in this
space. Many service providers are merely leveraging the marketing and go-to-market strategy they
used for more project-centric approaches, with a strong emphasis on tools and technology. Testing
lags behind other mainstream disciplines of outsourcing and is often embedded in infrastructure
outsourcing or application management contracts. However, organizations are significantly increasing
their efforts to centralize testing services, and are looking for strategic options that include transferring
end-to-end responsibilities to service providers.
Ovum view
The market adoption of comprehensive outsourced testing is accelerating, but a lack of discussion on
the implications for sourcing underlines two issues. First, the market is still in a nascent state and only
a handful of providers are typically selected for comprehensive deals. Second, the suggestion that
clients prefer co-sourced approaches, in which the organization works with third parties, is in contrast
to the development of all other segments of the IT services market. By not emphasizing the sourcing
implications for the business case, governance issues, and the transfer of assets and people, this has
left engagement models largely in a project-centric approach to testing, in which the end-to-end
responsibility remains with the organization. Nevertheless, the largest deals exceed $100m, indicating
both the complexity of such deals and more importantly the highly lucrative addressable market. The
problem is that the messaging used for testing capabilities is woefully inadequate. It is mainly stuck in
a world of jargon, testing tools, and methodologies, and fails to address the fundamental issues that
are holding back the development of outsourced testing.
The leading providers stand out due to their vision to increasingly embed testing into business
processes and encourage its evolution into a much more strategic proposition. Conversely, despite
high-profile IT failures, organizations remain reluctant to invest in testing services, particularly
centralized structures or shared services. Many testing professionals stay within their field, so cross-
pollination from other outsourcing disciplines is scarce. This limits the experience in complex sourcing
issues and may explain in part organizations’ widespread insistence on traditional forms of testing
services, particularly manual testing. However, the evolution of IT service delivery models toward
much higher degrees of automation requires new and more comprehensive approaches to testing.
Thus it is not a question of if, but of when testing services will follow the path of other disciplines of
outsourcing.
Key findings
 Enterprises’ testing functions have heterogeneous organizational structures, with lines of
business functions often trying to exert political power.
 The slow emergence of centralized approaches, coupled with a lack of investment, is a
reference point for the lack of maturity of testing functions.

 Organizations (and vendors) should focus as much on sourcing implications as on the
technical aspects of testing services.
 Most of the leading providers have very similar overall capabilities. Differentiation comes
largely through engagement models and completeness of vision.
 When choosing a provider, enterprises should place importance on the vendor's ability to
provide local support, its flexibility in contractual arrangements, and its ability to take on end-
to-end responsibility.
 Buyers should seek clarity on methodologies for onboarding, and on how providers intend to
develop their portfolio in order to mitigate risks and assure alignment with the strategic goals
of the business.
Market and services analysis
The evolving discipline of outsourced testing
Outsourced testing services remains a market segment full of contrasts. Organizations have been
slow to view testing as a strategic investment that warrants funding for centralization and
standardization akin to that implemented for shared service centers, but testing services is a high-
margin business for providers. The marketing of testing services is still fairly technical, reflecting an
emphasis on tools rather than managed services or comprehensive outsourcing. This is likely due to a
lack of perceived strategic relevance. Arguments around sourcing strategies and implications are
scarce, but these issues need to be addressed to both help organizations in their transformational
journey and boost demand for comprehensive outsourcing. Nevertheless, comprehensive outsourcing
contracts are gaining traction, with providers taking on end-to-end responsibility. The decision-makers
for these deals are focusing on business-centric criteria such as business case, risk mitigation,
transfer of assets and people, and clarity of roadmap. In other words, the decision-making process is
becoming increasingly aligned with that of other disciplines of outsourcing, and as such the
implications of the sourcing lifecycle are becoming the critical criteria in the decision-making process.
Service providers need to adapt their go-to-market strategies to address this shift in buying criteria.
For comprehensive deals, the emphasis needs to be on the business case, risk mitigation, and the
transfer of assets and people. However, much of the market messaging is steeped in technology-led,
largely project-oriented work, and while this is sufficient for the majority of testing services, the
development of comprehensive outsourcing requires a more succinct go-to-market strategy. The
blurry messaging is also due to the heterogeneous ways testing functions are organized, as revealed
by the World Quality Report – which in our view is the best primary data on testing. As Figure 1
outlines, 35% of organizations deploy a combination of centralized and decentralized teams, while
27% have begun to centralize their testing function. A further 12% revealed that their testing execution
function is managed by an external provider. This indicates that no single logical organizational model
acts as a conduit for outsourcing. Rather, we expect testing services to follow a similar evolution to
shared services toward more globally centralized models. Conversely, high levels of decentralization
will inhibit comprehensive outsourcing.

Figure 1: Structure of testing functions
Source: Capgemini, World Quality Report 2013
These organizational structures are further complicated by the fact that 19% of organizations’ testing
functions are co-managed by an external provider and internal resources. This implies a significant
degree of fragmentation and no overarching end-to-end responsibility. Against this backdrop of
heterogeneous structures, we believe a testing center of excellence (TCoE) is a good proxy for an
organization’s centralization efforts akin to shared services for other, broader IT services, and we will
use it as a key benchmark in our evaluation for comprehensive outsourcing. Testing services are a
continuum ranging from project business and staff augmentation to comprehensive outsourcing, but
the key is to understand where there is a fundamental shift in go-to-market requirements from
technology to sourcing implications.
Linked to this shift toward centralization and outsourcing are notions of testing for business assurance
and of embedding testing capabilities into business processes, thereby underlining the increased
strategic value of testing services. Another largely aspirational vision is predictive testing that
leverages both automation and analytics tools. Similarly, by transforming testing functions to get to
higher levels of centralization and automation, providers are emphasizing the different engagement
models (including outcome-based pricing and testing-as-a-service (TaaS)) as compared to the
broader gamut of testing services. The common denominator for all of these approaches is the use of
business-centric metrics, as testing slowly evolves into a business-critical discipline. This report
provides insights and guidance on the best practices and capabilities of the leading outsourced testing
providers, adding to the currently very limited reference material for the shift in decision criteria for
outsourced testing.

The evolution of testing services
Figure 2 depicts the continuum of testing services and the evolution of organizational and contractual
models, unraveling the overlapping approaches and blurry marketing strategies related to these
services.
Figure 2 Evolution of testing services
Source: Ovum
The marketing and go-to-market strategies of most providers stop at managed services, with many
providers using the term for both lower-value discrete process streams and the comprehensive
outsourcing of complete testing functions. Thus the marketing for managed services is largely
inadequate for the requirements of outsourcing. Testing services should be perceived within a
continuum, from staff augmentation to managed services to outsourcing of specific testing functions or
testing for specific products. The crucial point is that the decision criteria for project-centric work and
outsourcing are fundamentally different, with the criteria for outsourcing shifting toward the business
case, the transfer of assets and people, and risk mitigation.
The World Quality Report provides more insights into organizations’ efforts and attitudes on
centralization. Of respondents, 26% indicated that their TCoE is fully operational, while 15% plan to
use a third-party company with a TCoE capability. Probably the most striking data point is that less
than 39% of respondents measure the IT value of quality assurance. The transition to outsourcing is
not feasible without proper measurement. Therefore, transformational consulting services need to
provide proper means for clients to measure their testing capabilities, whether in-house or outsourced.

The difference between project-centric work and outsourcing is also apparent in discussions on
methodology. The best example is the depiction of agile methodologies. While agile has almost
become a standard in project-centric work, executives at CGI rightly point out that agile has to be
adapted case by case in an outsourced environment, depending on the maturity of the client. One of
the challenges of working in an agile way is the close cycle between developers and testers within
agile iterations.
Provider solution criteria
Inclusion criteria
We contacted the top 15 service providers for testing services globally – based on our discussions
with stakeholders, which revealed that only a select group of providers are typically invited for RFPs.
The main criterion for inclusion is the comprehensive outsourcing of centralized testing functions. This
should take a similar approach to shared services or the mainstream disciplines of outsourcing. The
supplier must have end-to-end responsibility for the testing activities, and the service must be based
on a long-term contract managed through SLAs and KPIs.
The criteria for including a vendor solution in this ODM are as follows:
 The vendor must be recognized as a tier-1 provider of BPM solutions for enterprises.
 The solution operates in at least two major geographies (from Europe, North America, and
Asia-Pacific).
 It generates revenues of at least $100m from outsourced testing.
 The solution serves at least three of the following verticals: energy and utilities; financial
services; healthcare; life sciences; manufacturing; media and entertainment; professional
services; public sector; retail, wholesale, and distribution; telecoms; and travel, transportation,
and logistics.
 Ovum has experienced enterprise client demand for information relating to the particular
offering. Providers were only invited to satisfy the first four criteria if this one was met. Where
client demand has been exceptional, we waived the first four criteria.
Exclusion criteria
For this evaluation we do not look at projects around staff augmentation or testing within application
management or ITO contracts. These have different engagement models so require different
marketing strategies. This is not to suggest that these segments necessarily have a smaller
addressable market than comprehensive outsourcing deals.
The criteria that prevented a solution from being included in this ODM are as follows:
 The provider operates in only one or two verticals.
 The provider operates in only one geography within Ovum's enterprise client base (from
Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific).
 Ovum has experienced little or no enterprise client demand for information relating to the
solution.

Ovum ratings
 Market leader: This category represents the leading solutions that we believe are worthy of a
place on most testing selection shortlists. The vendor has established a commanding market
position with a product that is widely accepted as best-of-breed.
 Market challenger: The providers in this category have good market positions and are selling
and marketing their offerings well. Most of these providers are on the journey toward
comprehensive outsourced offerings and are investing strongly in their capabilities. These
offerings offer competitive capabilities and sound outsourcing propositions, and should be
considered as part of the selection process.
 Market follower: Providers in this category are typically aimed at meeting the requirements of
a particular kind of customer, often relating to a specific vertical or offering. With a strong
heritage in project-centric services, these providers should be explored as part of a multi-
vendor environment.
Market and product analysis
Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing, 2014–15
Figure 3: Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing, 2014–2015
Source: Ovum

Figure 4: Expanded view of Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing, 2014–2015
Source: Ovum
Table 1: Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing, 2014–2015
Market leaders Market challengers Market followers
TCS Atos CSC
Cognizant Infosys iGate
Accenture Tech Mahindra L&T Infotech
IBM CGI
Capgemini HCL
Wipro
Source: Ovum
Market leaders: TCS, Cognizant, Accenture, IBM, Capgemini,
and Wipro
The market leaders stand out for three reasons: First, they are selected for comprehensive
outsourcing deals on a regular basis. Second, they depict a strong vision of the evolution of their
outsourced offerings, enabling organizations to gauge the development of their testing functions
should they chose to outsource. Third, they manage a significant amount of TCoEs on behalf of their
customers, which is a good proxy for their outsourcing capabilities. All of these providers should be
considered for global requirements as they have a demonstrated ability to successfully deliver global
contracts.
In terms of offerings and market impact, TCS was the strongest performer. Its call-out characteristics
were the breadth of its offerings and the feedback from its customer engagements. In terms of

execution, our discussions with Cognizant stood out due to its succinct referencing of the implications
of end-to-end responsibilities and its convincing articulation of the journey toward embedding testing
into business processes. Accenture added a strong narrative on evolving toward predictive testing
underpinned by expansive analytics capabilities, and the provider has built out strong industrialized
vertical capabilities. IBM demonstrated solid traction in complex global deals, including its strong
capabilities in the Japanese market. Capgemini deserves credit for educating the market on
comprehensive outsourcing. Wipro demonstrated strong penetration in the banking sector with
significant contracts.
Market leaders
Market leaders: offering assessment
Figure 5: Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing market leaders – offering
Source: Ovum

Market leader: execution assessment
Figure 6: Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing market leaders – execution
Source: Ovum

Market leader: market impact assessment
Figure 7: Ovum Decision Matrix: outsourced testing market leaders – market impact
Source: Ovum

Provider analysis
Cognizant: Ovum recommendation – leader
Figure 12: Cognizant radar diagrams
Source: Ovum
Cognizant stands out for how it articulates the implications of end-to-end responsibility and aligns
them with organizational issues around testing services, and for its embedding of the discussion of the
evolution of testing into the contingencies of sourcing strategies and business processes.
Consequently, the vendor highlighted liability as a key issue on this journey toward comprehensive
outsourcing. Specifically, where the end-to-end responsibility is defined around business outcomes,
the liability is not just confined to testing capabilities, but to guaranteeing the efficiency of business
processes. Cognizant referenced these experiences through its mature and comprehensive
arrangements in banking (with Lloyds Bank, UBS, and Credit Suisse), retail (with Waitrose and John
Lewis), and professional services (with Lexis Nexis). Cognizant’s go-to-market approach is focused
on expanding the business through selling testing services to existing clients. Cognizant should be
considered for banking and healthcare requirements as well as to support cloud offerings.
Cognizant’s key differentiating IP is its Adpart suite for model-based testing. This embeds testing
services into business processes and provides dashboards that allow business analysts to manage

test assets without needing specialist knowledge, enabling them to draft, review, and certify the
business flows. These capabilities can be extended by integrating with the Rally agile requirements
management solution. Cognizant’s other differentiated IP includes BenefitServ, an integrated
healthcare benefits configuration and validation solution that underpins Cognizant’s strong traction in
the healthcare vertical.
Appendix
Further reading
Outsourced Software Testing Is Coming of Age, IT019-003107 (October 2012)
Services Guide: Outsourced Testing, IT019-002946 (November 2011)
Agile and Lean Business Transformation, IT016-001470 (February 2013)
Service Virtualization: Accelerating Testing, IT0022-000098 (May 2014)
Author
Thomas Reuner, Principal Analyst, IT Services
thomas.reuner@ovum.com
Ovum Consulting
We hope that this analysis will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. If you
have further requirements, Ovum’s consulting team may be able to help you. For more information
about Ovum’s consulting capabilities, please contact us directly at consulting@ovum.com.
Copyright notice and disclaimer
The contents of this product are protected by international copyright laws, database rights and other
intellectual property rights. The owner of these rights is Informa Telecoms and Media Limited, our
affiliates or other third party licensors. All product and company names and logos contained within or
appearing on this product are the trademarks, service marks or trading names of their respective
owners, including Informa Telecoms and Media Limited. This product may not be copied, reproduced,
distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Informa
Telecoms and Media Limited.
Whilst reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the information and content of this product
was correct as at the date of first publication, neither Informa Telecoms and Media Limited nor any
person engaged or employed by Informa Telecoms and Media Limited accepts any liability for any
errors, omissions or other inaccuracies. Readers should independently verify any facts and figures as
no liability can be accepted in this regard – readers assume full responsibility and risk accordingly for
their use of such information and content.
Any views and/or opinions expressed in this product by individual authors or contributors are their
personal views and/or opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of Informa
Telecoms and Media Limited.

CONTACT US
www.ovum.com
analystsupport@ovum.com
INTERNATIONAL OFFICES
Beijing
Dubai
Hong Kong
Hyderabad
Johannesburg
London
Melbourne
New York
San Francisco
Sao Paulo
Tokyo

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15

Similar to Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15 (20)

More from Cognizant

More from Cognizant (20)

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15