TitleManaging software tester talent within an insurance company.BackgroundTalent management for software testers has proven to be an issue on the spectrum of information technology (Perry and Rice(2013); Gaur and Chillar( 2013Karthik (2013) Perry and Rice (2013) are of the opinion that some organizations still practice manual testing which requires a lot of manpower, they are unreliable, inaccurate and due to these factors testers get bored when they have to do their job and end up approving poor quality artifacts Rice (2013) organizations tend to use non-technical people to perform the tests and allo at the same time they do not offer any formal training for these testers. Some testers remain in the field without acquiring skills and when the tools are introduced they become obsolete due to lack of skills. Karthik (2013) points out that manual testing by its nature is repetitive and that manual testers are sometimes underestimated by developers because they are not technical. Most younger testers end up pursuing other paths in information technology or turning to organizations where testing is taken seriously. Gaur and Chillar (2013) state that sometimes organizations do not provide testers with exciting career opportunities but tend to invest in testing tools. In addition to that, manual testing doesn't make the job interesting and there isn't much to learn. Problem Statement: The organization does not provide opportunities to young testers, resulting in young people leaving the industry. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to understand how organizations have bridged the gap between upskilling software testers and using software tools and outsourcing. How their solutions can be used to target talent...... middle of paper ......technical business people to run tests and usually do not receive any formal/informal training on testing as a profession. This results in poor quality tests. • Building relationships with developers: Testers are usually treated like the “poor cousins”. When an application in production is discovered to have bugs, the people blamed are the testers and they forget about the developer who actually wrote the code. • Make time for testing: In most projects the delay always comes from development, resulting in less time spent on testing. Less time means that not everything will be tested thoroughly. • Fighting a losing situation: When testers approve an application that they know contains bugs, they will be accused of not having done a good job with the tests, but if they still don't sign it, they are still hammered and told that they are causing delays in the project.