You’re deep into a project, go-live is rapidly approaching, but there is still a mountain of testing to get through. Then, a key stakeholder chimes in with the fantastic and original suggestion… “Let’s just pull more people into testing.”
I mean, it sounds logical: bigger effort, higher quality—right? But, as anyone who’s been through several crunch cycles knows, doubling down on resources can easily lead to chaos, confusion, and worse software quality.
More Isn’t Always Better
The myth that adding testing resources will yield faster results persists in software development, at least during high-pressure periods.
I’m sure you’ve been involved in projects where spare business users have been roped in to the test team to help push things forward. Without meaning to be harsh, there’s usually a reason these people aren’t needed in the business team.
These extra hands often lack the necessary skills and experience, and ultimately disrupt the testing effort more than they help.
The Hidden Cost of Bigger Teams
New team members require onboarding, mentoring, and time to acclimatise to project-specific tools and processes.
Without this, new additions can dilute focus and burden experienced testers, who now spend much of their time training and supporting newcomers instead of finding bugs and driving quality.
For one thing, the role of a test lead requires different skills from those of a tester, so you could end up with square pegs in round holes.
Even worse, when additional resources are thrown at testing, the original testers can find themselves elevated to team leads. This makes things even worse, diverting the best resources away from key activities at crunch times.
The end result is often a scrappy, uncoordinated rush, far from the rigorous, focused testing effort that good software deserves.
Chasing Short-Term Wins, Missing Long-Term Gains
Software quality isn’t something you can magically achieve by increasing the size of a test team.
These last-minute panics are indicative of fundamental problems, including a lack of respect or appreciation for testing and a misunderstanding of quality assurance processes.
Truly rigorous, professional testing requires early investment, a proper strategy, prioritisation, training, effective communication, and professional tooling.
The payoff requires patience, trust, and empowered teams. Without these, companies can find themselves trapped in a cycle of rushed releases and crisis fixes, never reaping the long-term benefits of their investment in quality.
Conclusion: Quality Needs Time and Empowered Teams, Not Just Money
Effective quality improvement isn’t about throwing money, headcount, or frantic effort at testing.
It’s about providing teams with clear direction, sufficient time, and the autonomy to do their jobs well.
Rather than flapping around at the end of a project, testing needs to be taken seriously right from the off. When that happens, you will see fewer production bugs, better maintainability, happier users, and lower total cost of ownership.
Haphazardly expanding your testing operation risks waste, confusion, and—most dangerously—a false sense of security.
Bonus: Dealing With the Inevitable Reality
In truth, I’ve been in this game for a while, and I know that one single blog won’t change things.
If you must add people in a crunch, you need to make testing as accessible and foolproof as possible. Investing in structured, accessible test management tools is a great way to do it.
Modern, established and feature-rich Test Management tools like ValueEdge Quality (previously ALM Octane, and now known as Core Software Delivery Platform) streamline the process, unlock team productivity, and keep quality from becoming collateral damage. They ensure:
- Standardised test formats
- Step-by-step execution
- Easy evidence capture and results logging
- Intuitive interfaces for quick onboarding
The unfortunate truth is that last-minute, panic-driven test resource ramp-ups will continue to blight projects. Make it as easy as possible with ValueEdge Quality.
