We’ve all been there—sitting in a meeting, nodding along, confident that everyone shares the same understanding, only to discover later that our ideas were built on shaky ground, based on false assumptions and an incomplete grasp of a complex situation. In the world of software development, nowhere is this more common, or more consequential, than with software testing.
Recently, I’ve started watching flat-earth videos on YouTube. Or rather, the videos that mock flat-earthers. These videos brought the Dunning-Kruger effect to my attention.
This is the tendency for individuals with limited knowledge in a particular domain to overestimate their competence. At the same time, true experts may underestimate their own expertise—and I think we see this a lot in software testing.
In software testing, the Dunning-Kruger effect is further amplified by the field’s hidden intricacies and the persistent myths that surround it.
Software Testing Is Frequently Misunderstood and Oversimplified
Software testing is not just a tick-box exercise. It is one of the most misunderstood disciplines in software development.
Misconceptions are common among key project stakeholders, team members, and even testers who are new to the game or have been seconded in from other roles during periods of high activity.
For example, you’ve doubtless been in project meetings, where someone has trivialised testing, saying something like “Testing is just finding bugs.” You might also have witnessed project management and stakeholders chase the 100% test coverage chimaera.
The problem is, the people espousing these views just don’t know enough about testing to understand what it is for and how best to achieve it. Meanwhile, the genuine testing experts are left scratching their heads, wondering whether or not they’ve missed something.
Five Misunderstood Concepts in Software Testing:
This edition of Testing Times highlights and clarifies five of the most common misunderstandings in software testing and offers practical advice to help businesses unlock the true value of their testing teams.
1. Testing Is Just About Finding Bugs
One of the most persistent myths is that the sole purpose of testing is to uncover defects.
This narrow view undermines its broader role in risk mitigation and decision support. While identifying issues is absolutely a fundamental part of the process, testing’s true value lies in providing stakeholders with actionable insights into:
- Release readiness and stability
- Compliance with regulatory requirements
- Alignment with user expectations
Effective testing frameworks focus on risk prioritisation rather than bug counts.
Teams should conduct collaborative workshops to map features to their business impact, ensuring that validation efforts target high-value areas, such as security protocols or business-critical workflows that drive revenue.
This approach transforms test reports into strategic tools for guiding product roadmaps and allocating resources effectively.
2. The Goal is 100% Test Coverage
The reckless pursuit of total coverage often becomes a counterproductive obsession.
However, while the allure of total test coverage is strong, exhaustive testing is impossible. Most non-testers would be amazed at how quickly combinatorial explosion kicks in during functional testing. Permutations mount up exponentially, even for the most primitive solutions.
Any solution you’re testing will contain untestable edge cases, environmental dependencies, and emergent behaviours that defy scripted validation.
A risk-based strategy—as described in point 1 above—should replace coverage targets.
3. Automation Will Solve All Testing Problems
I am a strong advocate for automation, and have been for decades, but I’ll be the first to tell you that it is not a silver bullet.
Automation accelerates repetitive tests (e.g. regression packs) and frees up testers for exploratory work, but it requires investment in design, scripting, script maintenance, and infrastructure. Plus, you should aim to have good process documentation to base your automation on—manual test assets or workflow videos.
Moreover, not all manual tests are suitable for automation—human insight remains essential for usability, exploratory, and non-functional testing.
Misapplied automation creates maintenance nightmares and false confidence.
Strategic Automation Principles
- Stability First: Automate only mature features with stable requirements
- High-Return Targets: Focus on frequently executed tests (daily smoke tests vs. annual compliance checks)
A balanced test suite combines the automation of core functionality tests with scripted manual assets for less frequently executed processes, as well as exploratory testing for finding unimagined misbehaviour.
4. Testing Can Be Squeezed at the End
All too often, project stakeholders view testing as expendable, and frequently compress testing phases when projects run late.
This approach invariably leads to missed defects, rushed releases, and technical debt.
In fact, compressing testing into final project phases practically guarantees costly rework and technical debt.
The cost of fixing a defect rises the longer it goes undetected…
- Found in unit testing: Often costs almost nothing to fix.
- Found in SIT: Could cost many thousands of pounds to fix and potentially delay go-live.
- Found in live: Could destroy your business, cause a safety risk, or even worse.
5. Testing Is a Cost Centre, Not a Value Driver
Testing is often seen as an overhead, but this view is short-sighted.
Effective testing reduces rework, accelerates time-to-market, and protects brand reputation. It’s better to think of testing as a profit-protection mechanism.
Testing’s Value Proposition
- Revenue Protection: Ensuring users can carry out their processes.
- Brand Equity: Ensuring compliance with accessibility standards
- Operational Efficiency: Reducing support ticket volumes through usability testing
Conclusion
If there’s one thing we should take away from these five misunderstood concepts, it’s that software testing is far more nuanced and valuable than most project stakeholders realise.
The Dunning-Kruger effect reminds us that it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking we know enough, only to discover, often too late, that our assumptions were not built on solid foundations. In software testing, this can mean the difference between a smooth release and a production nightmare.
The next time you find yourself nodding along in a meeting, pause and ask: Are we really on the same page?
