Should QA exist?
rubick.com
March 27, 2026
13 min read
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
54/100
Summary
Engineering leaders are increasingly questioning the necessity of quality assurance (QA) in organizations, viewing it as an outdated practice. Some argue that quality should be the responsibility of the engineering teams themselves, while others express skepticism about this perspective.
Key Takeaways
- Many engineering leaders believe that quality assurance (QA) should not exist, arguing that engineering teams should own quality to avoid slowing down the development process.
- QA is seen as outdated by some, with concerns that it creates a moral hazard by allowing engineers to shift responsibility for quality to others.
- Supporters of QA argue that testing is a specialized skill that can uncover deeper issues and that automated tests provide significant value when integrated into workflows.
- A poll of engineering leaders indicated that 100% of respondents believe QA should mostly not be part of software teams, with some exceptions for high-stakes situations.
Coverage & discussions
Hacker News · rubick.com
Community discussions
Community Sentiment
Positives
- Good QA professionals uncover bugs and regressions that developers may overlook, ultimately leading to a more resilient product, which is crucial for software quality.
- Automated testing with AI simplifies the process of ensuring end-to-end coverage, enhancing overall product reliability and reducing manual effort in QA.
- QA personnel often possess deep knowledge of the product, guiding developers on requirements and configurations, which is essential for creating user-friendly applications.
Concerns
- There is a perception that some engineers believe they can handle all roles, including QA, which can undermine the importance of specialized quality assurance practices.
- The article's conflation of QA with mere testing overlooks the broader scope of quality assurance, which includes standards and design reviews necessary for comprehensive quality improvement.
