Is your quality assurance working right now? or is it there just for the sake to have it? In this series, we’ll explore how businesses of any size can future proof their QA strategy.
In today’s fast-paced and highly competitive software industry, quality is no longer optional. A product with poor quality can lead to catastrophic consequences for both businesses and end-users. Quality Assurance (QA) is often introduced with the expectation that it will ensure the final product meets high-quality standards. Yet, far too often, teams invest in Quality Assurance (QA), expecting flawless outcomes, only to face delays, budget overruns, or even total failure.
Some products never make it to the market at all, due to failing to meet business requirements or deliver the real value. Other launch but struggle to maintain system quality over time. Some succeed- but at double or triple the original cost.
And these aren’t just struggles for startups. Even industry giants like Forever 21 (ERP collapse), Nike (supply chain disruptions), and Target Canada’s inventory management meltdown have faced devastated QA failures.
If Quality Assurance is meant to safeguard quality, why does it so often underdeliver? Let us walk you through the key areas where most QA processes fail – and how we can turn them around.
The Misconception of Quality vs. Testing
Many people assume that testing equals quality, but that’s not always true. You can continue testing endlessly without necessarily improving quality. To conduct proper testing, we need a well-defined protocol that considers many critical factors:
- Scope: The right test scope is defined.
- Timing: Testing should occur at the right phase with optimal speed.
- Environment: The test environment must be properly managed.
- Data: Test data is accurate and suitable.
- Reporting: Test reports clearly highlight the problems.
- Team: Skilled experts with no conflict of interest.
- Budget: Proper allocation for testing activities.
- Tool: Having the right testing tool and TC/Defect management in place.
- BAU (Business as Usual): A defined testing process define covering development through post-go-live phases.
Even with all these elements in place, testing only reveal quality status – It doesn’t inherently improve quality. Even after all of this, we’re still only highlighting the quality status, not actually improving the quality yet. True software quality depends on every step of the process: gathering requirements, designing solutions, development, testing, and continuous improvement.
For testing to drive real quality, QA teams must collaborate closely with business, product, and development teams to optimize processes.
For example:
- Deeply understand business users’ problems.
- Analyze and design solutions that minimize impact.
- Prioritize defects effectively, unblocking critical issues first.
- Ensure fixes are released correctly with proper version control.
Even in modern software development methodologies such as Agile/CICD, these principles remain essential. Quality isn’t just about testing- it’s the result of collaboration across all activities.
Why Testing Last Means Failing First
Testing should never be the last step. Many organizations schedule testing for the final stages, expecting defects to be caught before going live. However, this often leads to compromises: cutting test scope, skipping essential tests, or implementing temporary fixes to meet deadlines. The results? Poor quality and unexpected cost overruns.
The “Shift Left” approach addresses this by moving testing earlier in the development process. While it may require more time upfront, it ultimately saves significant time and costs later. Identifying issues during development is far more efficient than fixing them after coding is complete — let alone in production.
The Cost of Late Testing, IBM’s studies reveal:
- Fixing defects after coding is 10× more expensive than catching them during development.
- Correcting errors in production can cost 100× more than addressing them early.
By shifting left, teams don’t just find bugs—they prevent them.
Testing Without Metrics is Guesswork
Many projects perform QA testing without measuring outcomes. Rather than testing endlessly, The team should implement metrics to track quality trends and predict project direction. Simple but powerful metrics include:
- Repeat failures: How often does the same test case fail?
- Regression defects: How many old issues were reopened?
- Defect Density: What’s the bug concentration per test round?
- Test execution time: How long does it take to execute the tests?
If these metrics trend negatively, where will your project end up?
As the saying goes:, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.” By defining and using appropriate quality metrics, The development team can better understand potential risks, refine testing strategies, optimize processes, and ultimately lead to better software quality overall.
Don’t Understand When to Start and When to Stop
Each QA activity requires specific inputs to begin effectively. Too often, testing starts simply because the project schedule demands it – leading to incomplete testing, unstable features, never-ending tests due to scope creep, wasted resources from incorrect test data, and frustration from unclear requirements.
Entry and exit criteria are simple but effective. Entry criteria ensure readiness, while exit criteria determine completion. Here are some simple examples of entry and exit criteria:
Entry Criteria (Must-Have Before Testing Begins):
- Prior test phase completed (meeting its exit criteria)
- Signed-off test scope and plan
- Approved and ready test cases
- Prepared test data
- Allocated test resources
- Test resources are allocated
- Development is complete and deployed
Exit Criteria (When Testing Can Conclude):
- 100% of test cases execution (with documented exceptions)
- All defects with Severity 1 and 2 are closed
- Signed-off workarounds are agreed upon on for remaining defect with 3 and 4 severity
Not Planning for The Unknown Unknowns
Scope changes during testing are a natural part of the development process. When testers and stakeholders finally interact with the working product, they inevitably discover new use cases, identify missing requirements, and encounter real-world scenarios that differ from initial assumptions. This is why testing often reveals gaps that weren’t visible during planning or development.
However, most teams make the critical mistake of failing to plan for these expected discoveries. Without proper contingencies, testing phases extend far beyond their scheduled timelines, creating costly delays that ripple through the entire project.
The solution lies in building intentional buffers for “unknown unknowns” – those unpredictable elements we can’t anticipate but must accommodate. Smart teams recognize that no plan survives first contact with reality, which is why they build flexibility into their testing approach from the beginning. Those who don’t accept this truth inevitably find their carefully crafted plans collapsing when real-world testing begins.
Not Applying Technology
In today’s fast-paced digital landscape, relying exclusively on manual testing methods puts organizations at a significant disadvantage. While manual testing retains it own value, enterprise companies operating in competitive markets simply cannot maintain their edge without adopting modern QA technologies. The need for rapid service delivery and continuous innovation makes manual-only approaches unsustainable.
QA professionals require comprehensive technological solutions, including test case management systems, defect tracking tools, automated functional and performance testing platforms, intelligent test data management solutions, version control integration, and even cutting-edge AI applications. These technologies have transitioned from optional advantages to fundamental necessities that directly impact productivity, quality assurance, and competitive positioning.
Forward-thinking organizations recognize that the strategic adoption of QA technologies delivers measurable improvements in both product quality and team efficiency. The question is no longer whether to implement these tools but how quickly they can be integrated into existing workflows to maximize their benefits.
With 2 decades of enterprise QA experience, Chakarin Jiaranaipanich has observed these recurring patterns across multiple organizations. The challenges outlined in this article represent common pitfalls that continue to impact testing effectiveness in the field.
As Principal Consultant at Ready, Chakarin helps organizations transform their QA practices through:
- Comprehensive process assessments
- Metrics-driven quality frameworks
- Strategic test automation implementation
- QA-DevOps integration
For organizations seeking to modernize their testing approach, contact Chagrin at [email protected] to discuss how READY can help your organization avoid these QA pitfalls.
Coming Next:
In the upcoming series, Chakarin will challenge what you know about QA: “Is Your QA Really QA?”, a closer look between validation testing and the real essence of quality assurance that are particularly relevant in today’s CI/CD environments.
About Ready
Ready is a consulting agency committed to providing innovative solutions to address operational and technological needs. With a focus on strategy, automation, and enablement, Ready specializes in offering forward-looking solutions for the modern customer. With operations in the United States, Philippines, Australia, and Thailand, and plans to expand further, Ready is set to become a global force in the consulting world.
Share
English 
ไทย