How to Set Up a Software QA Process

One of the most impactful changes I've seen in quality happens when you implement one specific process: a 30-minute QA-Dev sync meeting for each feature before coding begins to discuss the implementation and testing strategy. When I first bring this up with a client, I get predictable objections: Developers don’t want to "waste" their time. Leadership doesn’t want to "lose" development time. Testing is necessary anyway, so why discuss it? Our QA doesn’t couldn't possibly understand code. The reality is that the impact of effective testing can be remarkably hard for an organization to see. When it goes smoothly, nothing happens — no fires to put out, no production issues. As a result, meetings like this can be difficult for leadership to measure or justify with a clear metric. What confuses me personally is why most engineering leaders say they understand the testing pyramid, yet they often break it in two, essentially creating two separate pyramids. Instead, you should have a collaborative session where QA and Dev discuss the entire testing pyramid — from unit tests to integration and end-to-end tests — to ensure comprehensive and efficient coverage. Talking through what constitutes effective unit and integration tests dramatically affects manual and end-to-end testing. Additionally, I'm continually impressed by how a QA who doesn’t "understand" full-stack development can still call out issues like missing validations, test cases, and edge cases in a method. QA/Devs should also evaluate whether any refactoring is needed, identify potential impacts on existing functionality, and clarify ambiguous requirements early. The outcome is a clear test plan, agreement on automated and manual checks, and a shared understanding that reduces late-stage bugs and improves overall product quality. #quality #testing #software

Assign a test owner before the start of coding. The test owner is responsible for the test strategy and accountable for whatever testing the team does. The test strategy is part of ready to start coding, on par with the development designs. Reviewed test results are part of being done, meaning the team performed whatever testing they intend and have had a chance to make a decision based on what they learned. Anybody can be a test owner, who that is will be determined by the team during the transition from planning to coding. Whether it is a dedicated tester, another developer brought in to help, or the same developer writing the code, the team makes an informed decision based on their understanding of risk and nature of the planned work. The test owner describes the test approach in the test strategy. The team will execute on that approach as agreed by the team. The test owner and developer(s) work together to make sure the development plan and testing plan are optimized and work together as much as possible. Where and how testing happens, during unit tests, in test environments, on specialized equipment, via exploratory end-to-end testing sessions, as part of deployment pipelines, or postproduction is all determined and described in the test strategy. The goal of approach is to establish test accountability as part of the core release plan in a way that affects all the engineering decisions and allows a more flexible approach to testing. Rigid processes such as "hand-off to QA" give way to context-driven decisions based on what is being tested and a team assessment of needs and risk. Dogma driven discussions about "who does testing" are eliminated when the testing problem is broken into parts and pieces and work assigned in a manner that fits the work itself. "Throw it over the wall" vanishes as testing works its way into every stage in the process. The key are the simple points in the cartoon: 1) assign a test owner at the start, 2) deliver a test strategy as part of ready to code, 3) reviewed test results are part of done. These three points form an anchor that establish accountability and a point where feedback on what works and what does not can begin correction. #softwaretesting #softwaredevelopment #shiftleftisdeadlonglifeshiftitalloverthefreakinmap

No one likes being the first to discover a bug, especially when it’s your paying customer. For B2B SaaS founders, a broken feature doesn’t just mean a delay; it’s a dent in your reputation. And it usually leads to a support ticket... or worse, a cancellation. That’s why our QA process doesn’t kick in after development. It starts on day 1, right alongside feature planning and backlog grooming. Here’s what that looks like in practice: ✔️ QA is involved in the kickoff and ticket breakdown ✔️ Strategic QA presence in planning and refinement. This drives clarity, reduces rework, and ensures development starts on a solid foundation, which leads to faster delivery and fewer bugs in production ✔️ Manual regression happens before every release ✔️ Nothing hits staging without a clean QA pass It's not "bug hunting." It’s quality engineering, designed to give your team confidence and your users a smooth experience. According to the World Quality Report, companies that integrate QA from the start see a 30–40% improvement in velocity and satisfaction... We’ve seen that play out firsthand. If you're scaling fast and want every release to reflect that momentum, QA can’t be an afterthought.