Why Conversec?

Judgment that changes how the team works.

The judgments, responsibilities and working principles behind our support for testing teams.

Simon works with the people responsible for delivery to establish the cause, choose a response and take agreed responsibility for the change.

Discuss your team

A practical starting point

What would make us choose a different response?

A useful investigation tests the explanation. Conflicting QA standards, missing knowledge and insufficient supervision each call for different action.

Explore the diagnostic →

Principle 1

Investigate the cause before prescribing recruitment or training.

A capable tester can struggle because expectations conflict or support is unavailable. Examine the actual work and the conditions around it before deciding the team needs another hire or course.

In practice: The recommendation should explain what caused the problem, what evidence supports that assessment and what still needs checking.

Principle 2

Pair support with clear professional standards.

People need dependable help and a clear account of what is expected. That includes report quality, responsiveness to clients and how to raise uncertainty.

In practice: Coach people through the work, then address persistent problems against an agreed standard. Support does not remove responsibility.

Principle 3

Account for review and supervision when committing capacity.

Testing days are only part of an engagement's effort. Unplanned senior review and missing prerequisites can consume time the booking never allowed for.

In practice: Resolve scoping assumptions and allocate review and coaching time before accepting work that depends on them.

Principle 4

Develop internal leadership and transfer work when people are ready.

A temporary concentration of decisions can help stabilise delivery. It also needs a path towards capable internal owners.

In practice: Use supervised decisions and subsequent work to assess readiness, then transfer responsibility while keeping escalation available.

A shared QA standard

Actionable. Clear. Defensible. Correct.

AC/DC gives consultants and reviewers a basis for examining a finding and explaining why it needs correction. Separate material defects from personal wording preferences, and check that the client can act on the advice.

See AC/DC applied to report examples →

From an engagement

Stabilising a pentest team and developing its next leaders

A confidential engagement with a penetration testing company of approximately 20 testers.

The problem: Frequent resignations, inconsistent quality and fragmented communication left capable testers feeling unsupported as work continued to be booked.
The judgment: Further senior recruitment would struggle to succeed unless the conditions in which the team worked changed.
Simon's responsibility: Simon headed the testing function and became the main leadership contact for scheduling, scoping and quality while establishing clearer support and standards.

Read the case study

Observed results

Greater stability

Voluntary resignations fell from roughly one per month to two during a subsequent twelve-month period.

Broader contribution

More testers supported presales, scoping and a wider range of technical engagements.

Internal leadership

Senior team members began taking on leadership responsibilities, with Simon's involvement reducing from four days a week to two.

An account of Simon's engagement, with the client anonymised. The initial resignation rate is approximate, and work to develop the business continues.

Working together

Agree the responsibility and the evidence of progress.

Define the decisions Simon will own, the work your team will carry out and when the result will be reviewed. Use the review to address what remains unresolved.

Discuss your team Explore the services