Why outdated testing methods slow development

As a client project manager, I consistently found that offshore software development teams from major providers like Infosys, Accenture, IBM, and others delivered software that failed 1/3rd of our UAT tests after the provider's independent dedicated QA teams passed it. And when we got a fix back, it failed at the same rate, meaning some features cycled through Dev/QA/UAT ten times before they worked. I got to know some of the onshore technical leaders from these companies well enough for them to tell me confidentially that we were getting such poor quality because the offshore teams were full of junior developers who didn't know what they were doing and didn't use any modern software engineering practices like Test Driven Development. And their dedicated QA teams couldn't prevent these quality issues because they were full of junior testers who didn't know what they were doing, didn't automate tests and were ordered to test and pass everything quickly to avoid falling behind schedule. So, poor quality development and QA practices were built into the system development process, and independent QA teams didn't fix it. Independent dedicated QA teams are an outdated and costly approach to quality. It's like a car factory that consistently produces defect-ridden vehicles only to disassemble and fix them later. Instead of testing and fixing features at the end, we should build quality into the process from the start. Modern engineering teams do this by working in cross-functional teams. Teams that use test-driven development approaches to define testable requirements and continuously review, test, and integrate their work. This allows them to catch and address issues early, resulting in faster, more efficient, and higher-quality development. In modern engineering teams, QA specialists are quality champions. Their expertise strengthens the team’s ability to build robust systems, ensuring quality is integral to how the product is built from the outset. The old model, where testing is done after development, belongs in the past. Today, quality is everyone’s responsibility—not through role dilution but through shared accountability, collaboration, and modern engineering practices.

A conversation between a QA lead and a client related to test automation. QA Lead: Good morning! I'm excited to talk to you about an important enhancement to our testing strategy: test automation. Client: Hello! I've heard a bit about test automation, but I'm not sure how it fits into our current process. We've been doing fine with exploratory testing, haven't we? QA Lead: You're right, our exploratory testing has been effective, but there's a key area where automation can greatly help. Consider how our development team typically takes two weeks to develop a new feature, and then our testers spend a week testing it. As our software grows with more features, exploratory testing becomes a bottleneck. Client: How so? QA Lead: Well, with each new feature, our testers aren't just testing the new functionality. They also need to ensure all the previous features are still working — this is called regression testing. With exploratory testing, the time required for this grows exponentially with each new feature. Client: I see. So, testing becomes slower as our software grows? QA Lead: Exactly. For instance, by the time we reach feature number 15, testing could take much longer than it did for the first feature, because testers have to cover everything we've built so far. Client: That would slow down our entire development cycle. QA Lead: Right, and this is where test automation comes in. By automating repetitive and regression tests, we can execute them quickly and frequently. This dramatically reduces the time required for each testing cycle. Client: But does this mean we're replacing exploratory testing with automation? QA Lead: Not at all. Test automation doesn't replace exploratory testing; it complements it. There will always be a need for the human judgment and creativity that exploratory testers provide. Automation takes care of the repetitive, time-consuming tasks, allowing our exploratory testers to focus on more complex testing scenarios and exploratory testing. Client: That sounds like a balanced approach. So, we speed up testing without losing the quality that exploratory testing brings? QA Lead: Precisely. This combination ensures faster release cycles, maintains high quality, and keeps testing costs under control over the long term. It's a sustainable approach for growing software projects like ours. Client: Understood. Implementing test automation seems like a necessary step to keep up with our software development. Let's proceed with this strategy. QA Lead: Excellent! I'm confident that this will significantly improve our testing efficiency and overall product quality. #testautomation #exploratorytesting #regression #QA #testing

In my experience, most companies still approach accessibility reactively. 🚨   They wait for issues to be flagged by audits or lawsuits, then scramble to fix them. Leaders I’ve spoken to often describe using multiple disconnected tools—one for testing, another for fixing—and this disjointed process leaves their teams frustrated and overwhelmed. Fixes take time, and accessibility becomes a burden rather than a proactive part of development. We’ve seen how this reactive approach creates more problems. Waiting for audits means that accessibility issues have been sitting there for months. When developers finally get around to fixing them, they’re working on outdated code, which means more time and higher costs. 💸 This reactive cycle also pushes accessibility down the priority list, making it a box to check instead of an integral part of the workflow. Companies like eBay and Oracle have faced massive legal and reputational risks because of this. The leaders we work with have seen the difference a proactive approach makes. By embedding accessibility checks into the development process, like we do with TestParty, developers can catch and fix issues in real-time. 🌍 TestParty integrates with tools like VSCode and GitHub, providing in-context solutions as code is written. This reduces manual work, saves time, and ensures accessibility is built into every stage of development.

Projects with a heavy manual QA process tend to be projects where QA is a bottleneck and point of frustration. Manual QA has its place, but I see it misused as a knee-jerk reaction to buggy production releases. Often mandated by somebody fully removed from the technical team. If your team is releasing buggy code, it's great to catch it in QA, but it's better to catch it before it leaves the developer's machine. Here are some alternative approaches to take: ❓Ask your team what they need. Do they feel pressured or lack time for thorough testing? 📊 Track test coverage. Set a baseline. Code reducing test coverage should be the exception, not the norm. 📒 Create a habit of writing a test when new bugs are found. Ensure you never see that bug again. 😬 Are there well known problem areas in the code? Give your team some time to fix them (and write tests for them). 🤖 Automated testing tools like Playwright and Selenium are great. If unit tests aren't enough, automate the manual QA. 🕵️♀️ Use an error alerting service like Sentry. Be the first (or second) to know. Don't wait for a user to tell you something is broken. ⏮️ Get good at rollbacks. A stress-free rollback process turns emergencies into minor hiccups. Some of these changes may feel like they slow development down initially, but the benefits quickly outweigh the costs. Over time, you’ll build a process that gains momentum effortlessly. More like gliding smoothly on a skateboard than struggling to push down a bumpy gravel path. 🛹

Transform Your QA Strategy with Shift Left for Quality Product Delivery !! Delivering high-quality products efficiently remains a significant challenge in software development. Traditional methods often push testing to the end of the development phase, leading to delays, increased costs, and higher risk of defects. Shift Left advocates for integration of testing earlier in the development lifecycle. Instead of waiting for the development phase to conclude before initiating testing, Shift Left encourages testing activities to begin as early as the requirement and design stages. Lets see some of the benefits of using Shift left in your projects: 1. Early Detection of Defects and Faster Feedback: Identifying bugs and issues at the initial stages of development is significantly more efficient than catching them later. This leads to shorter feedback loops resulting in quicker and cheaper fixes. 2. Improved Collaboration: By involving QA early, teams can ensure that quality is a shared responsibility, leading to better communication and a unified approach to problem-solving. 3. Cost Efficiency: The cost of fixing a defect increases exponentially as it progresses through the development stages. 4. Faster Time-to-Market: As the defects are identified and resolved earlier, the development process becomes more streamlined and enabling faster delivery of high-quality products to market. Now lets see few ways to implement shift left into our projects: 1. Automate as much as possible: Automated tests can be run early and often, providing immediate feedback thereby reducing the time and effort required for manual testing. Improve the unit test coverage, integration tests, contract test, end to end regression tests. 2. Exploratory Testing: Exploratory testing complements automated testing by identifying issues that automated tests might miss. It involves testers exploring the application, simulating real-world scenarios, and identifying potential issues. 3. Test-Driven Development (TDD): TDD encourages us to write tests before code, ensuring that testing is an integral part of the development process. 4. Continuous Integration / Continuous Delivery (CI/CD): CI/CD pipelines ensures that code changes are continuously integrated and tested. This helps in early detection of defects and accelerates the delivery process. "Early bug detection is not just a task; it's a mindset." What challenges have you faced in shifting left, and how have you overcome them? Share your experiences and insights in the comments below!! Your feedback could help others on their journey to improved quality and faster delivery.

Too much to test, never enough time. Traditional testing approaches often lead to testing everything equally, resulting in bloated test suites and inefficient resource use. This not only slows down the process but also risks missing critical issues. It’s frustrating to see effort wasted on low-impact areas, while high-risk components don’t get the attention they deserve. This can lead to last-minute firefighting, costly fixes, and a lack of clear communication with stakeholders about what truly matters. Risk-based testing is the first step towards a solution. By prioritising high-risk areas, we focus our efforts where they have the most impact. This approach reduces redundancies, optimises resource allocation, and ensures our testing is aligned with business priorities. The result? Leaner processes, better quality software, and more efficient use of time. How are you tackling redundancies in your testing process?