Sales Executive at Inspired Testing, Carlize Bosch
Testing and quality assurance should work hand-in-hand to ensure a software project is successful. In reality, however, the two are often seen as silos. Carlize Bosch is a Sales Executive at Inspired Testing, a global software testing company and a Dynamic Technologies group company. She interacts with clients across multiple industries every week. From financial services to retail, healthcare to logistics, there’s one issue that surfaces in many conversations: the disconnect between software testing and quality assurance.
Bosch says, “This problem costs organisations millions in rework, missed deadlines and damaged reputations. The surprising thing is that even companies that have adopted Agile are still getting this fundamentally wrong.”
The ‘safety net’ mentality
Most organisations still view quality assurance as the last step before going live. It’s treated as a safety net; something to do at the end to catch whatever might have fallen through the cracks. It’s an outdated perspective that turns testing into reactive firefighting. By the time testers discover a defect, organisations are already looking at costly rework and missed deadlines.
“Quality can’t be a phase, it must be a mindset that is continuously encouraged, embedded from day one and owned by everyone,” she explains. Instead of damage control or a checkbox exercise at the end of delivery, it needs to be present all the way through.
A real-world example
“We often engage with organisations that feel their QA team, once seen as a safety net, has become the biggest blocker in their business,” says Bosch. “We recently spent time with a number of key clients, interviewing people across various roles – architects, business analysts, developers, testers, tech leads and product owners. What we discovered was revealing.
“Their issues didn't start with QA. From the start, requirements were unclear, collaboration was poor and teams weren’t allowed to talk to each other directly. In a typical process, BAs would receive a one-liner requirement from a product owner then spend weeks getting approval for their documentation. Meanwhile, developers needed to start building the features without clear specifications. By the time the requirement landed with the testers, they had no context. What should I test? How does this integrate with other systems? What’s the expected behaviour?”
Bosch is clear in her assessment. “Because testing happened as the last step before go-live, it was perceived as the blocker. Nobody looked at the BA component or the development phase, only at testing because that’s where the delays became visible, but it wasn’t where they started.”
Testing vs quality assurance: understanding the difference
Bosch identifies the fundamental distinction that many organisations miss: testing is just one task. It’s the act of executing tests to find defects and ensure functionality works before release.
Quality assurance is something entirely different. It’s a holistic process of preventing bugs and defects, improving collaboration and embedding quality at every step from the very start.
A shift left mindset
An antidote to this is the shift left approach. “Shift left is a mindset that modern, mature Agile teams need to adopt. It means involving QA early – from design discussions and requirements analysis. It means spotting potential issues before they become actual problems. When testers are involved in requirement sessions and know the system well enough, they can identify what might not work. Catching defects at this stage is exponentially cheaper and faster than finding them in production.”
The benefits are clear. From cost savings and continuous feedback loops to improved collaboration and genuine shared accountability across the team.
The speed vs quality trap
Speed and quality are the top two challenges for businesses. Developers are operating at an increasing pace with no or limited time for unit testing. This burden falls entirely on testers who need to test everything end-to-end. Bosch points out the irony that when deadlines get missed or scope changes, organisations tend to cut back on testing time, seldom on development.
“Testing cycles get shorter and shorter. Coverage gets smaller and smaller,” Bosch says. “If organisations involve testers from the very start – working with BAs and developers throughout – by the time the requirement hits the formal testing phase, 70% of testing has been done. Testers know exactly what to look for and what to test.”
A proactive approach to quality
There are four key steps to consider. Eliminating silos helps break down the walls between BAs, developers and testers and will create a smoother workflow and fewer miscommunications and delays. Agile principles encourage open communication and help foster a collaborative environment and can eliminate ambiguity and assumptions. Buy-in at leadership level is essential for promoting and supporting a quality-first approach. Lastly, a shift left means bringing testers into conversations earlier to avoid unnecessary delays.
Back to basics
Operating at pace often leads to shortcuts – documentation isn't done properly, tools aren’t used effectively, communication drops. But skipping essential back-to-basic steps is likely to lead to time wasting and a less efficient process.
Empowered teams have frameworks to operate from and own the quality aspect with genuine accountability and responsibility. They don’t rely on testing to be their quality control; they lay solid foundations and build from there. Testing should only be for the finishing touches and to ensure that everything functions as intended. It’s fine tuning and not a last-minute attempt to catch what everyone else may have missed.
The organisations that thrive are those that see BAs, developers and testers as one unified team with a shared goal. That’s when quality assurance stops being a phase and becomes embedded, just where it should be.