Why outdated testing methods slow development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 Independent dedicated QA teams are an outdated and costly approach to quality.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

Five years ago, we started MuukTest with a question: Could we make "Great Software Testing and Automation" easier? My cofounder Renan Ugalde & I each have 20+ years of Software Development & QA experience. We've seen Bad Software Testing and Great Software Testing - way too much of the former, not enough of the latter: Bad Software Testing:  - Nonexistent professional testing team, expecting "developers to do all their own testing" (which 'works' until it doesn't) - Wild, non-disciplined, exploratory testing that doesn't help  - Testing that's treated as a second-class citizen in an engineering org, not as a partner - Reactive, under-resourced testing teams  - Testing with deficient coverage and no automation at all - Testing that's treated as the last step in an assembly line - Massive teams of testers, treated like a boiler room - Testing that slows engineering down I spent years of my life in Software QA and Testing roles like this… where I spent my Christmas holidays frantically, manually running regression tests across an entire application that *had* to be released yesterday. This is bad Software Testing. It is stressful for everyone and doesn't lead to good outcomes. Great Software Testing is:  - Proactive - A mix of (smart, disciplined, strategic) manual exploration and automation - Partner to engineering - Happens throughout the engineering cycle - Performed and coordinated by small teams of testing experts  - Employs amazing tools - Helps engineering move faster - Delivers insights, not more work Since 5 years ago, we have always believed that 'Great, Fast, Efficient Software Testing' will be made possible by AI. Bad testing happens because of bad ideas and bad tools, but with AI helping with a lot of the heavy lifting of test automation and maintenance, 'Great, Fast, Efficient Software Testing' is possible for more teams. Proud of our work in AI, making Great Software Testing possible for ANY software team. Great Software Testing means better software, faster development, happier customers, and better outcomes for all. 

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?

Chip Validation is Broken—And It's Costing the Industry Billions NVIDIA ($2T market cap), Intel ($150B+), AMD ($300B) — all pushing the limits of chip design. But nobody’s talking about the hidden bottleneck slowing their progress: Validation inefficiencies that delay launches and burn resources. These aren’t isolated issues. They’re systemic failures. Before a chip hits the market, it undergoes extensive testing to ensure it performs as expected under real-world conditions. This process—chip validation—is crucial for verifying functionality, performance, and reliability. But validation today is painfully slow. Engineers spend weeks scripting and running tests manually, dealing with fragmented tools, and sifting through scattered data to debug issues. The result? Delays, inefficiencies, and skyrocketing costs. The Broken Playbook -Weeks spent scripting tests instead of analyzing results -Scattered data across tools, slowing debugging cycles -Manual processes introducing errors and inefficiencies Behind the cutting-edge innovation lies a brutal truth: Validation is stuck in the past the last software that was built for validation released in 2001 (LabView). The Future of Validation: A new era is emerging: Automated, AI-driven validation workflows. And the results are game-changing: 20x faster test execution Fewer errors, more actionable insights Seamless collaboration across teams At Atoms, we’re not just talking about the future—we’re building it: One platform to automate and accelerate chip validation AI-assisted workflows to streamline debugging Real-time insights for faster decision-making Because while traditional validation burns months, the companies of the future are already moving at light speed. The old methods had their time. The age of AI-powered validation has begun. #Semiconductors #ChipValidation #FasterTimeToMarket #TestFlow