Let's answer this question with a thought experiment: Assuming a company were to implement the 6 steps of successful testing in-house, a team of 2 people would be fully occupied with this for about 1.5 to 2 weeks. This is a considerable use of resources â in addition, the "testing amateur" would be required to do a lot of things that the experienced professionals can do much more effectively.Throughout this article we have emphasised how important the business values are that are delivered here. If you were to go directly from the prototype to the technical implementation without testing, you would save this expenditure, but without the user feedback, thereâs a high risk that parts or even the entire product concept will be rejected by the market after implementation.The costs for user testing therefore stand in contrast to the costs of the entire implementation, which would then have to be revised â or in a worst case scenario â completely redone.So we answer the question correctly by putting it the other way round: it might cost a fortune not to do user testing.