Chair of the judging panel

Myron Kirk

Head of Test, Environment and Release


Chekib Ayed

Head of Testing Practices

Société Générale Corporate & Investment Banking

Aashish Benjwal

Associate Director – Global Asset Management


Lindsey Gibbs

Head Of Testing

University of Nottingham

Nadine Martin

Senior Manager, Test Operations

Sony Interactive Entertainment

Niranjalee Rajaratne

Head of QA, Delivery Strategy

Third Bridge

Al Sabet

Head of Test


Chintan Savjani

Head of Software Quality Assurance

Kantar Media (a WPP Company)

Deepak Selvaraj

Head of Test and Deployment (Technology Solutions)

Virgin WiFi

Rouven Schreck Head Of Quality Assurance Prudential

Rouven Schreck

Head Of Quality Assurance


Simon Strickland

UK Head of QA, Test & Release Management

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd

A truly independent awards programme

The European Software Testing Awards judges are appointed based on their extensive experience in the software testing and QA field. These seasoned professionals, all of whom currently hold senior management roles guarantee that each entry is judged fairly and accurately.

To ensure complete impartiality all entries are judged anonymously with company and/or individual names, products, or references to any identifiable solution and/or service being removed before being distributed to the judges.

This stringent process means that each winner of an award has done so based purely on merit. So regardless of company size, budget, customer base, market share, influence, vendor, academic, end user, consultant or otherwise; The European Software Testing Awards truly is an independent awards programme that recognises and rewards outstanding achievement.

Judges' feedback

The following are comments gathered from the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Judging Panels after they had reviewed all entries. It may help you in deciding on what information to include in your entries.

As a whole the entries did not take into account user experience as much as the Judging Panel would have liked.

Additionally, the entrants should remember that they are being judged by a panel of industry peers and so would do well to pitch the entry to the target audience. A few entries were considered “overly simplistic.”

Entries that fared better tended to:

  • give explicit evidence of project success (time/money saved, etc.)
  • show empirical evidence on what the problem was, what they changed and the what they measured to show the success
  • show willingness to adopt more modern test practices and show some initiative to research how others are improving
  • include voices of customers/clients, which was helpful in showing successful outcomes
  • include a strong introduction summarising the project (timelines/scope) and what the expected outcomes were/what the business stakeholders were looking for
  • give strong evidence of communication skills in the ‘best individual’ categories
  • give strong evidence of work/involvement outside of their main organisation in the ‘best individual’ categories
  • emphasise the role of testing and QA throughout the SDLC
  • demonstrate holistic approach to testing and upskilling of team members
  • show commercial awareness
  • not be overly perfect – there is no such thing as a perfect project – it was interesting to hear about the occasional blip in the road and how the team worked to overcome it
  • clearly discuss project challenges and how they were overcome
  • give context to metrics to fully justify their inclusion
  • not attempt to use metrics, which are broadly regarded as bogus (e.g. simply quote test case numbers) but provide a range of metrics which demonstrated success

Entries that fared better tended to:

    Weaker entries tended to:

    • not focus on a project or come across too much like a sales pitch
    • not give evidence of the project’s purpose/scope/timeline/success
    • not consider the larger picture
    • not justify the reasoning behind including metrics
    • list a large number of acronyms, tools or technology (this just distracted from the original problem and the eventual outcome)