Is Your QA Team Following Dogma or Karma?
Can You Handle the Change?
As QA teams grow and evolve, they often find themselves at a crossroads: Are they focusing on rigid, dogmatic practices, or are they embracing a more fluid, karmic approach that adapts to the moment? Let's dive into this philosophical tug-of-war and explore what it means for your QA team - and your software.
Dogma: The Comfort of the Rulebook
Dogma in QA is the strict adherence to predefined processes, checklists, and methodologies, no matter the context. It's the "we've always done it this way" mindset. Think of the team that insists on running a full regression test suite for every minor bug fix, even when a targeted test would suffice. Or the insistence on manual testing for every feature because automation "can't be trusted."
There's a certain comfort in dogma. It provides structure, predictability, and a clear path forward. For new QA engineers, a dogmatic framework can be a lifeline - a set of rules to follow when the chaos of software development feels overwhelming. And in highly regulated industries like healthcare or finance, dogmatic adherence to standards can be a legal necessity.
But here's the catch: Dogma can calcify into inefficiency. When a team clings to outdated practices - like refusing to adopt modern tools because "the old way works" - they risk missing out on innovation. Worse, they might alienate developers and stakeholders who see the process as a bottleneck rather than a value-add. Dogma, unchecked, turns QA into a gatekeeper rather than a collaborator.
Karma: The Flow of Cause and Effect
On the flip side, a karmic approach to QA is all about adaptability and consequences. It's the belief that good testing practices today lead to better outcomes tomorrow - less technical debt, happier users, and a smoother development cycle. A karmic QA team doesn't blindly follow a script; they assess the situation, weigh the risks, and adjust their strategy accordingly.
Imagine a team facing a tight deadline. Instead of dogmatically running every test in the book, they prioritize high-risk areas based on code changes and user impact. Or consider a team that invests in automation not because it's trendy, but because they've seen how manual repetition burns out testers and delays releases. This is karma in action: thoughtful decisions that ripple outward in positive ways.
The beauty of a karmic approach is its flexibility. It embraces new tools, techniques, and feedback loops. It's less about "the process" and more about the result - delivering quality software that meets real-world needs. But there's a downside: Without some structure, karma can devolve into chaos. Teams might skip critical steps in the name of agility, only to face a flood of bugs post-release. Karma requires discipline and judgment, not just good intentions.
Striking the Balance
So, is your QA team following dogma or karma? The truth is, neither is inherently "right" or "wrong" - it's about finding the sweet spot between the two.
- Audit Your Dogma: Take a hard look at your current processes. Are there sacred cows that no one's questioned in years? Maybe that 50-page test plan made sense for a legacy system but not for your new microservices architecture. Challenge the status quo and ditch what doesn't serve the goal of quality.
- Embrace Karmic Wisdom: Encourage your team to think critically about cause and effect. If a process feels like busywork, ask: What's the payoff? If a new tool could save hours, why not try it? Build a culture where decisions are tied to outcomes, not just tradition.
- Blend the Best of Both: Use dogma as a foundation - standardized bug reporting, compliance checks, or a core set of tests that never get skipped. Then layer on karmic flexibility - tailoring efforts to the project's unique risks and timelines.
A Real-World Example
I heard of a QA team that swore by their exhaustive manual test suite. Every release, they'd spend two weeks clicking through the UI, even for tiny updates. Dogma ruled. Then a new lead joined, pushing for automation in high-traffic areas. The team resisted - until they saw the karma: faster releases, fewer late-night bug hunts, less late night testing, and happier devs. They didn't abandon manual testing entirely; they just redirected it where human intuition mattered most. The result? A hybrid approach that delivered quality without the grind.
The QA Crossroads
Your QA team's philosophy shapes more than just your testing - it influences your entire product lifecycle. Dogma offers stability but can stifle progress. Karma promises agility but demands discernment. The best teams don't pick a side; they dance between the two, guided by one question: Does this help us build better software? So, take a moment to reflect. Is your QA team stuck in the past, or are they sowing seeds for a better future? The answer might just determine whether your next release is a triumph - or a lesson in what could've been.