27 Years Later: Why QA Still Fights the Same Battles

When I began my career 27 years ago as a Junior Tester at a startup in New York, I had little more than a Computer Information Systems (CIS) degree, a lot of determination, and zero QA knowledge, education or experience. I was young, excited, hopeful and ready to make an impact in the software world.

But reality hit fast. I was the only tester in the company responsible for not one, not two, but three major applications. And while the industry has evolved dramatically in terms of tools, technologies, and methodologies, some of the core struggles I faced back then still persist today.

Let me take you through what hasn't changed, even after nearly three decades in the QA world.

Budget Challenges & Unrealistic Expectations from QA

In my first couple roles at New York start ups budgets were tight, and expectations were sky-high. The leadership had recently invested in Mercury Interactive’s WinRunner, convinced that automation was the silver bullet that would solve all testing challenges overnight.

They assumed that automation meant I could now test all three applications effortlessly, despite being a newcomer with only theoretical knowledge and no practical experience. There was no real strategy, no understanding of ROI, and no time allocated to learn the tool properly. I quickly realized that using WinRunner, at that point, would take more time than it saved. It would distract me from my core responsibility to ensure fast, high-quality releases. I still learned the tool and automated close to 50 scripts but realized supporting 3 applications by reviewing requirements, creating manual test cases, conducting functional, usability and compatibility testing across multiple browsers and OS and at the same time automating its mission impossible. I did not give up with automation, but I relied on what I had such as common sense and a relentless focus on risk, prioritization, and user impact.

Fast forward to today and I still see the same thinking. Companies still treat test automation as a checkbox or magic wand. QA teams are still expected to “just automate everything” without the time, training, or support to do it right or enough automation resources in place. The tools have changed, but the unrealistic mindset hasn't.

Time to Market Over Quality

Back then, I found myself in countless battles with product managers and business stakeholders who prioritized feature delivery over product stability. I'd report defects, flag risks, and ask for time to stabilize the release and time and time again, my concerns were brushed aside. “We already promised the release to customers,” I was told. “Let’s fix it later.”

But "later" often meant dealing with angry customers, emergency hotfixes, and long nights and weekend support for me. Sound familiar? I am sure it does for many of you out there.

This pattern still haunts QA professionals today. The speed of Agile, DevOps, and continuous delivery has only made the problem more severe in some cases. Testers are still being asked to sign off on incomplete work, give a green light to untested code, and overlook defects for the sake of deadlines.

The industry still seems unwilling to grasp a simple truth: rushed releases may win time in the short term, but poor quality will cost far more in the long run.

QA Still Isn’t Seen as a Priority

One of the most frustrating challenges I faced was constantly having to prove that QA mattered. It was seen as an “extra nice to have thing”, something optional. Many believed that developers should write their own unit tests and then use WinRunner and that hiring dedicated testers was an unnecessary expense. Do you recall this?

Sadly, this narrative is still alive today. Despite endless proof that structured quality assurance reduces risk, enhances user experience, and drives customer loyalty, QA remains underfunded, underappreciated, and misunderstood in many organizations.

What’s worse? When things go wrong, QA is often the first to be blamed, even when we raised the red flags long before deployment.

So, What Have We Learned?

Here’s the most upsetting part: we haven’t learned enough.

I’ve spent nearly three decades leading QA transformations, building testing centers of excellence, conducting audits, mentoring teams and supporting 474 global clients. I’ve spoken at conferences, written methodologies, built e-learning courses and advised startups to Fortune 500 companies.

And yet, I’m still having the same conversations.

I still hear:

• “Do we really need testers?”

• “Can’t automation replace QA?”

• “Can we skip testing to meet the deadline?”

We’re living in a time of AI-driven development, scriptless automation tools, and cloud-based test environments and yet, we’re still stuck fighting for the basics: time, resources, and respect for the QA discipline.

The Mission Must Continue

Despite all this, I’m not giving up. Because I still believe that quality matters more than ever.

• Customers have more choices today and less patience.

• Competition is at an all-time high as everyone is fighting hard to win the business.

• Brand reputation can collapse with a single bad release.

Which is why I’ll continue to educate decision-makers, push for structured quality practices, and promote human intelligence in testing. That’s why I developed HIST (Human Intelligence Software Testing) a framework designed to put disciplined, investigative thinking at the heart of QA in a world increasingly obsessed with speed and automation.

We need testers who think critically, ask uncomfortable questions, and advocate for the user not just tools that run scripts blindly.

Quality Is Not a Luxury, It’s a Necessity

I’m not against automation. I am not against AI. I’m not resisting change. But what I am against is this dangerous idea that we can cut corners on quality and somehow win.

You can’t “move fast and break things” forever. Eventually, the things you break will break you.

So to every QA professional out there fighting for test time, battling budget cuts, and trying to inject quality thinking into rushed releases keep going and we are together for this. Lets continue the battle.  Your role matters. Your voice matters. And your work protects not just the product, but the people who use it.

Final Thought

Quality is still one of the most misunderstood and undervalued concepts in our industry and that’s why our mission must continue.

We owe it to our users. We owe it to our teams. And we owe it to the future of software.

Never give up. Because QUALITY SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED.

********************************************************************************************

Catch up on HIST (Human Intelligence Software Testing) if you missed my earlier posts and follow me for honest, unbiased, no-nonsense insights about QA and the future of our craft.

Recommended Reading: Explore more about Human Intelligence Software Testing (HIST) discipline and how it's reshaping modern QA.

Why I created Human Intelligence Software Testing (HIST) and Why It Matters Now More Than Ever?

I Watched 76 QA Positions Disappear and It Made Me Question Everything

The Quiet Crisis in QA: Are We Forgetting the Human Factor?

The Slow Death of QA - A Problem We Helped Create

When Tools Stop Thinking, HIST Begins

7 Days of HIST: Support, Skepticism, and Why This Conversation Matters

How 2 Months of Training and a Fake Resume Landed a QA Job: The Harsh Truth of an Industry Loophole

HIST vs. RST: It’s Not a Competition—Each Has Its Own Purpose

HIST vs. Exploratory Testing – Two Different Worlds

Don't Let ChatGPT Be Your Voice: Reclaiming Human Intelligence in QA

How Agile May Have Damaged the QA Discipline: A Wake-Up Call

Why One of Your Greatest Weapons as a Tester Will Always Be Human Intelligence

The Death of QA Leadership in Agile and How HIST Brings It Back

How HIST Fits Within Agile and Heals Broken Processes

Exploratory Testing vs. Investigative Testing: Is It Time to Evolve?

Beyond Shift-Left: Enter the Era of Human Intelligence Software Testing