QA: Staying Positive While Bearing Bad News
Quality Assurance often faces a tough crowd; few enjoy hearing about a product’s flaws. Founders and sales teams may not welcome the bad news, and developers aren’t always thrilled by extra scrutiny. However, for DevOps specialists, Engineering Leads, and Project Managers, having open visibility into bugs and deficiencies is a necessary piece of the puzzle. They thrive on honest evaluations, tracking recurring issues, and rely on accurate reports to decide whether to move forward with new features or pause for fixes. In some QA roles, I was sometimes seen as the bearer of bad news, but for those responsible for maintaining the platform, my work was highly valued.
The Unpopular Side of Being Thorough
As a QA, I regularly pointed out every crack in the foundation I could find. Documenting issues wasn’t optional, it was essential for reliability and long-term success. While it may have felt like negativity to some, it gave DevOps teams and Engineering Leads a realistic view of the platform’s health, and offered Project Managers a more accurate outlook on upcoming feature work. Someone to highlight bugs and deficiencies, even if it meant focusing on the product’s weaker areas.
Not everyone appreciated that level of detail when it revealed a product’s sore spots. Some teams felt it “slowed progress” or “derailed momentum”—I’m looking at you, sales team and directors chasing the next funding round. But letting issues go untracked eventually caused bigger headaches. Proper documentation of known defects, potential system-breaking edge cases, and existing risks helped tech leadership make informed decisions about resource allocation and feature implementation. Even the design team could benefit from documentation of UI/UX inconsistencies, possibly using that evidence to advocate for the budget bump they’d been wanting.
Why DevOps and Engineering Leads Appreciated It
While founders might have winced at the negativity and sales might have dreaded anything that slowed their demos, those in charge of day-to-day operations saw a different picture. By thoroughly cataloging problems, I provided:
- • Clarity: Common bugs and root causes became traceable, allowing teams to see patterns across modules. This also gave the team something to refer to at any time, and it might even be part of a leadership presentation one day.
- • Roadmap Alignment: If a core service had a known issue, engineering could decide whether to postpone a new feature or fix the underlying bug first. This also benefited Project Managers, who could rely on the documentation to make informed decisions about timelines or de-scoping options.
- • Shared Responsibility: With transparent documentation, no one was blindsided by “invisible” system risks. Everyone knew the current state of affairs, along with a documented timeline of defect discovery. This could help leadership plan for any potential revenue loss tied to a known issue.
In essence, the occasional negativity forced me to look inward and trust my conscience, ensuring the product stayed stable and improved over time.
Being the “Guard Dog” of Documentation
I was generally proud of my meticulous bug reports and deficiency logs, sometimes more detailed than others found necessary. I saw it as my responsibility to keep an honest record. By highlighting issues early, I often prevented them from becoming time-consuming mysteries or escalating into production crises. And while pointing out problems was never exactly fun, I believed this rigor ultimately made life easier for everyone.
That commitment to documentation showed DevOps, Engineering, Design, and even Legal teams that QA was a genuine partner in maintaining reliability. If a particular service crashed repeatedly under load or if the same UI bug recurred three releases in a row, developers could trace it back, see where the breakdown occurred, and plan a proper fix or improvement.
Although QA might be the bearer of bad news, that visibility is precisely what allows a product to evolve in a stable, informed way. While not everyone loves constant reminders of a product’s flaws, the right people do appreciate it. In the end, honest reporting leads to robust platforms and smoother releases, a worthwhile trade-off for the occasional frown.