A sports betting platform with numerous QA staff, almost entirely manual testing, and automation attempts that had stalled. We transformed how they specify, test, and report on quality.
Sportingtech employed numerous QA resources, most of whom spent their time on low-skill manual checking. Their platform runs primarily on mobile, across multiple browsers and operators, but automated mobile testing was essentially non-existent.
Previous attempts at UI automation had stalled on an outdated framework. Regression tests existed as manual scripts in TestRail, many written loosely and assuming prior knowledge. Feature tickets sometimes included acceptance criteria, but inconsistently and without follow-through. Nobody was using them to drive testing.
The gap was not in effort or intention. It was in specification. Without tight behavioural contracts for what the system should do, no amount of manual checking could provide confidence. And without confidence, releases stayed slow and risky.
We started where we always start: with specification. Before writing a single automated test, we worked with product owners and development teams to establish what "done" actually means for each feature. Tight acceptance criteria, expressed as concrete examples in Given-When-Then syntax.
We then built a bespoke BDD automation framework in Java, designed for Sportingtech's multi-operator, multi-platform environment. Parallel execution across browsers. BrowserStack integration for mobile. Retry mechanisms for the inherent flakiness of a live gaming platform. Business-readable reports in plain English that product managers and executives could actually understand.
| Platform | Tests | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| API | 12 | Player management, system integration |
| Desktop E2E | 19 | Critical user journeys across operators |
| Mobile E2E | 10 | Key workflows via BrowserStack |
| Total | 41 | Full-stack coverage |
Beyond the tests themselves, we delivered BDD 101 and 202 workshops for the QA and product teams, covering specification-by-example, acceptance criteria, and shift-left quality practices. The goal was always to make the team self-reliant, not dependent on us.
Regression testing went from days to hours. Test reports became something stakeholders could read without translation. The BDD specifications created a shared language between product, development, and QA that hadn't existed before.
More importantly, the framework established a foundation for scaling. The 41 tests were the starting point, not the ceiling. With the architecture in place, the internal team could continue building coverage autonomously, using the same patterns and the same business-readable format.
The specifications themselves became assets beyond testing: documentation for regulatory compliance in the gambling industry, onboarding material for new team members, and integration documentation for third-party vendors and component sales.
You cannot test quality in. You need to establish early quality processes, so quality gets built in.
Sportingtech's challenge was not unusual. Most organisations with growing QA teams face the same pattern: many manual testers doing low-skill checking work, failed automation attempts, and feature tickets that don't specify behaviour precisely enough to verify it. The tools are different in every engagement, but the problem is always the same: the gap between what was specified and what was built.
Testclub exists to close that gap. Specification and verification are two sides of the same concern. Get the specification right and testing follows naturally. Get it wrong and no amount of manual effort will save you.
Facing similar QA challenges? Let's talk about your system.