Jeff Nyman

I was asked this on Friday, what should I expect from a Director of QA in their first 30 days, so I spent the weekend jotting down my thoughts. Full transparency, you won’t see four previous Director of QA roles on my profile. These learnings come from working with 35+ organizations on their Quality operations and writing down notes. I would have four core priorities in the first 30 days. 1. Understand the basic code architecture and the state of coverage. One of the most important areas is that the Director of QA needs to have at least partial ownership of unit and integration test coverage and practice. 2. Review the last 20 bugs that made it to production and identify where they should have been caught. Most will be at the service level down. See point one. 3. Talk to five key customers about where they currently stand in terms of satisfaction with quality. 4. Meet with leadership and document process and ownership of things like environments, databases, and whitebox/blackbox testing. Coming out of the first 30 days, I want a solid understanding of the product and the customers, an intimate understanding of whitebox and blackbox coverage with a roadmap for improvements, and documented process and ownership. What'd I miss? #quality #software #testing

509

115 Comments

Your CI program isn't failing because of bad tools. It's failing because of bad thinking. Most continuous improvement efforts treat symptoms, not systems. They see a problem and immediately jump to quick fixes. - Quality issues? Add more inspectors. - Safety incidents? Blame the worker. - Missed deadlines? Schedule more meetings. - Low productivity? Create new KPIs. This is symptom fixing. It feels productive but creates more problems. Systems thinking works differently. - Instead of reacting to problems, you analyze root causes. - Instead of blaming people, you improve processes. - Instead of quick workarounds, you design out problems. - Instead of tracking more metrics, you create feedback loops. - Instead of fixing symptoms, you address underlying culture. The difference is everything. Symptom fixing creates temporary relief. Systems thinking creates permanent solutions. Symptom fixing keeps you busy. Systems thinking makes you effective. Symptom fixing treats problems as isolated events. Systems thinking sees problems as connected patterns. Most CI programs fail because they never make this shift. They stay stuck in reactive mode. They celebrate putting out fires instead of preventing them. They mistake activity for progress. Real continuous improvement happens when you stop fixing symptoms and start changing systems. Which approach is driving your improvement efforts?

138

42 Comments

If I lost everything today and had to start over as an SDET in 2025, here’s the exact plan I’d follow. No shortcuts. No fluff. Just what actually works in real projects. Here’s the thing. Most people drown in tools and tutorials. I’d do the opposite. 1. 𝗣𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗤𝗔 I wouldn’t waste time learning five languages. I’d pick Java or Python and go deep into things that show up every single day in test work. Build small utilities to learn OOP Use Lists, Maps, Sets because test data depends on them Debug real failures to understand try-catch Write simple file readers and JSON handlers Keep code readable before touching fancy streams or lambdas What this really means is focusing on real-world scenarios instead of random LeetCode problems. 2. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 Not copied. Not overengineered. Something I can explain line by line. Choose any public site like Zomato or Flipkart Use POM or component-based structure Add reusable locators and fallback logic Include retry and wait wrappers Add Allure reporting that tells a clear story Then push everything to GitHub with a clear README like I’m mentoring a junior QA. 3. 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗻 Most testers stop at clicking Send. I’d go further. Start with Postman for basics Shift to REST Assured or Requests + Pytest Write reusable API functions Handle tokens, headers, failures Chain calls to create real workflows Keep UI and API tests in one repo This alone puts you ahead of half the market. 4. 𝗣𝗹𝘂𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗜/𝗖𝗗 Keep it simple but real. Push code to GitHub Run tests using GitHub Actions Tag tests for smoke or regression Use headless runs with Docker Send results to Slack or email My goal: anyone should run my tests without asking me how. 5. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 Not expert level. Just enough to speak confidently. Use JMeter or Locust for 50 to 100 users Watch response times and error rates Run API tests under load If you can answer How does your app behave under stress? you stand out instantly. This is the roadmap I wish I had on day one. It saves time, energy, and a lot of frustration. 👉 If you’re rebuilding your career or switching into SDET, I’ve been there. If you want guidance, resources, or need help building your first framework, I’m happy to help. And yes, I’ll soon share my website where I post my frameworks, templates, and mentoring notes. Stay tuned and feel free to connect. 👉 link-https://lnkd.in/g7MQNjDG #SDET #QA #QATesting #AutomationTesting #SoftwareTesting #TestAutomation #APITesting #CICD #Java #Pytest #GitHubActions #PerformanceTesting #TesterCommunity #QACareers #LearningInPublic #TechMentorship #QAEngineer #CareerAdvice #bharatpost

66

18 Comments

Most QA problems aren’t about tools or people, they’re about processes. If your testers are chasing bugs manually, your devs are guessing coverage, and your releases feel like fire drills, that’s not a resource issue. That’s a design flaw. Process is the real framework. Get that right, and everything else starts to click. #ProcessEngineering #SoftwareTesting #QualityOps #TestAutomation

24

2 Comments

The best QA professionals I’ve ever worked with all have one thing in common. They’re not just technically smart, but they’re curious. They ask questions, they dig deeper and they don’t settle for surface-level answers. This goes beyond QA professionals into people I've worked with more generally. There's genuine science behind why curiosity makes such a big difference. When you’re curious, your brain releases dopamine - the same chemical that drives motivation and reward. It activates the hippocampus, the region responsible for forming long-term memories. In other words - curiosity literally wires your brain to remember more and learn better. People remember more when they’re curious about the topic. Even unrelated info (like a face or detail you weren't trying to remember) sticks better during curious states. If you’re hiring, coaching, looking for work, or just trying to grow yourself.. You don't need all the answers, but you need to know how to ask the right questions. I asked Rosmy Carolina Valoyes, whether you can teach curiosity..

32

QA Manager: "Everyone checks temperatures properly now." Me: "Show me yesterday's logs." QA: "All 4°C, perfect!" Me: "Every single reading?" QA: "Yes..." Me: "So your cooler maintains exactly 4°C for 8 hours straight?" QA: "..." Here's what's really happening: Your team learned to write 4°C. They didn't learn to measure it. When every reading is perfect, no reading is real. Real temperature logs look messy: - 3.8°C - 4.3°C - 3.9°C - 4.1°C Because real coolers fluctuate. Perfect logs mean one thing: Someone's better at fiction than food safety. Are you collecting data or collecting lies?

207

28 Comments

Most QA teams know the grind of building and maintaining page objects. It’s repetitive, it’s time-consuming, and it eats into the hours you could be spending on actual testing. 🐌 Now imagine compressing hours of that work into just minutes without cutting corners. That’s one of the biggest takeaways from my conversation with Ben Fellows, founder of LoopQA. In this new TestGuild Automation episode, we dive into how AI, Playwright, and Cursor can automate the heavy lifting of coding while still giving testers control over quality. The result? Faster test creation, cleaner reviews, and more time to focus on what really matters: coverage and accuracy. Listen in to learn how you can start reclaiming hours in your QA cycle. 👇👇👇 https://lnkd.in/eMCF-qzX #TestAutomation #QualityAssurance #SoftwareTesting #QATesting #AutomationTesting #Playwright #Cursor #AITesting #TestGuildPodcast #LoopQA

75

11 Comments

Let's talk about the "manual QA is entry-level" myth. I've seen job posts that list manual QA as "no experience required" and automation as "senior-level work." And I get it. Writing code feels harder. It's more technical. It looks more impressive on a resume. But here's what people miss: 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗤𝗔 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗳𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿, 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲. When I'm doing exploratory testing, I'm  • Recognizing patterns across features (this checkout flow broke last sprint, let me check if the same logic is breaking here)  • Assessing risk (if this field accepts 500 characters but the database column only holds 255, what happens to the overflow?)  • Predicting edge cases (what if someone enters a future date? A past date? Today's date at 11:59 PM?)  • Reproducing intermittent bugs (it failed once out of 20 tries but why?)  • Testing without clear requirements (the ticket says "add a button" but where? for who? what happens when they click it?) I don't know about you but for someone still fairly early in my career, that's not entry-level thinking. That's analysis, intuition, and technical knowledge all working together. 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹. It's valuable. I'm still learning it right now. But a tool is only as good as the person using it. Writing a script to repeat the same 10 steps doesn't require the same kind of investigative brain power as figuring out which 10 steps are worth testing in the first place. Manual QA is the foundation. If you can't think through a feature manually, your automated tests won't catch the bugs that matter. So next time someone calls manual testing "basic," ask them to reproduce a race condition or find the root cause of a flaky workflow. Then we'll talk. 𝗣.𝗦. Anyway. That's my Ted Talk on why manual QA deserves more respect. Stepping off my soapbox now. But I'm gonna stand by it just in case. #SoftwareTester #QaTester #QaAnalyst #LearningInPublic

1,415

67 Comments

I keep seeing posts from engineers and testers in their 40s worried they’re “too old” for dev or QA roles. Honestly, that’s crazy. Most of us will be working well into our 60s (and companies know this). The truth? Experience counts. -You’ve seen projects fail and succeed, and know why. -You’ve shipped under pressure (and cleaned up the mess after). -You know what actually works vs what’s hype. -You’ve built resilience, not just skills. Tech moves fast, yes, but fundamentals don’t change, and wisdom compounds. If you’re in your 40s (or beyond), you’re not “too old.” You’re battle-tested. You bring perspective and maturity that’s hard to teach. The industry needs that. The next generation of devs and testers needs that. Getting older in tech isn’t a weakness ... it’s an edge.

139

23 Comments

“It’s just a console warning.” “It doesn’t break anything.” “Let’s fix it later.” That was the initial response to a seemingly minor issue QA flagged — a 1-line fix. But that one line was the reason screen readers were skipping an entire form. It took: • 3 comments • 2 Slack threads • A 10-minute live demo to the stakeholder …before it clicked. That 1-line change made the platform accessible to thousands of users relying on assistive technologies. 💡 Here’s the hard truth: Testers often have to advocate fiercely for issues that don’t cause crashes — but cause exclusion. Being in QA isn’t just about finding bugs. It’s about speaking up for the users who can’t raise their voices through error logs. Let’s remember: ✅ A tiny fix can have a massive impact. ✅ Accessibility is not a nice-to-have — it’s a must. #AccessibilityMatters #QualityAdvocacy #InclusiveDesign #QARole #UserCenteredTesting #TestingWithEmpathy #SmallFixBigImpact #VoiceForUsers

20

Learn automation or leave. That was the exact message a director gave to more than 100 QAs in a recent Techion meeting. No sugarcoating. No middle ground. It didn’t matter if someone was a manual tester, a virtual tester, or had years of experience. The line was clear: without automation skills, you won’t survive. At first, I thought this was just one company being extreme. But then I started hearing the same from others Browstech, Wingify, and more. The pattern is hard to ignore: - Manual-only roles are shrinking. - QAs are being pushed to code. - AI and automation are no longer optional they’re expected. It sounds harsh, but it raises a real question: Is this truly the future of QA? Or will manual testers with deep domain expertise still hold their ground? Because if “learn automation or leave” becomes the norm, the QA world may look very different in just a couple of years. What’s your take is this tough love or the harsh new reality?

43

5 Comments

🚨 Hot take: The biggest bug in our industry isn’t in the code — it’s in the terminology. “Manual Tester.” Really? So all that risk analysis, investigative thinking, and strategic validation is just… clicking buttons? If that’s “manual,” then maybe recruiters think “Automated Testing” means the scripts write and maintain themselves while testers sip coffee. ☕🤖 Newsflash: ⚡ Nothing in testing is manual — it’s intellectual work. ⚡ Automation isn’t magic — it’s tool-assisted execution that STILL depends on human brains. ⚡ By dumbing down the language, companies have dumbed down how they value testers. Managers love the buzzwords. Recruiters love the easy labels. But testers are stuck with job titles that don’t match the reality of their craft. Maybe it’s time we debug the terminology. Because let’s face it — without testers, even your “automated” pipelines would crash harder than IE6. 💥 Recruiters love “manual vs automated.” Testers know it’s really “thinking vs typing.” What do you think — is it time we retire “manual vs. automated” and start demanding titles that reflect our actual brains, not just our hands? #SoftwareTesting #QualityAssurance #ManualTestingMyth #ToolAssistedNotAutomated #ThinkLikeATester #FutureOfWork #TestingCommunity

198

29 Comments

If Your Team’s Moving Fast, Why Isn’t Your QA? Manual testing is the silent killer of release speed. It delays feedback, introduces errors, and forces you to choose between quality and velocity. Our eBook reveals the 5 signs your manual testing is holding you back—and how automation can turn your pipeline into a competitive advantage. Don’t let QA be the bottleneck. Get the eBook Now: https://ow.ly/ElgM50We25u #DevOps #SalesforceTesting #TestAutomation #AI

12

1 Comment

Mini QA Project: Automate Google Search with Playwright If you are learning Playwright, here’s a simple project you can try today. It covers browser launch, navigation, typing, and verifying results. You can run this in less than 5 minutes if you have Playwright installed. Perfect for practicing locators, assertions, and basic browser control. What should I automate next for the next mini project?

30

11 Comments

I have been schooled a few times by some of our fellow testers. I hear this often from them: “Yes, critical thinking, testability, risk analysis, and discovery matter. But those things don’t get you a job. What gets you hired is automation or AI skills.” That is true. It is also the clearest sign of how badly our industry has lost its way. Leaders defend this by talking about profitability, margins, speed, and investor confidence. The truth is simpler. It is fear. Hiring for tools looks measurable. It looks fast. It looks good on a board slide. But it is a short term mask that hides long term fragility. Speed without direction is waste. Margins without resilience are temporary. Investor confidence built on trends is fragile by design. Scripts can run all day. Dashboards can flash green. None of that will save you when the real unknowns surface. The only thing that will is a tester who can think beyond the script. Tools extend capability. Testers create insight. One without the other is imbalance. Leaders: if your hiring strategy stops at tool proficiency, you are not building strength. You are buying fragility and calling it efficiency. That may please investors for a quarter, but it will cost you customers in the long run. Testers: automation and AI are skills you should learn, but never at the cost of your core. Your ability to challenge assumptions, uncover risk, and connect quality to business impact is not a luxury. It is your edge. This state of affairs is sad, but not irreversible. Leaders can change how they write job descriptions. Testers can change how they showcase their value. Only then will we stop confusing trend chasing with progress. #softwaretesting #softwareengineering #testingcareers #qualityleqdership #criticalthinking #qualityengineering #brijeshsays

79

20 Comments