Hello, thanks for the response and the feedback here! We don’t normally respond to reviews but this one does seem to make some specific claims and we think a response is warranted.
For readers, the context on this case was a broad audit which was changed and narrowed significantly after the deal for the project had already been scoped and signed. We do try to accommodate this kind of change (and we know how important flexibility is to our service) but this late change led to a lack of detailed information about the types of blockers and bugs that the client was looking for. We believe this was the issue which led to results the client did not find useful.
To this reviewer, as we say to all our clients, more detail about the kinds of issues you’re hoping to uncover always leads to better quality results, and we generally see a continuous improvement in our value to clients year on year as we establish a value grid for their long term strategic objectives in addition to deeper guidelines about individual test case target results. For what it’s worth, we still think that if you had preserved you would have found the value that has made our other clients advocates who reinvest in our services each year.
Per the specific claims this reviewer makes:
– We have reproduced 65% of the results in an initial retest
– The average response time from our team was under 30 minutes
– We do normally bill up-front so reminders to pay would have been automated and I know a satisfactory resolution has been found
– We have reviewed the messages from the project manager and found them to be courteous and professional as always
Obviously we really regret this case and it’s discouraging to see an angry customer. We’re reviewing the process which leads up to initial tests when a client has fast-changing priorities to make sure they get a set of results they perceive as useful first time around. Thanks for trying us and best of luck finding services which better suit your needs.
