We talk a lot about well written software and that importance of building secure, scalable, user-friendly software. But what we don’t do is talk enough about is one of the most important roles in building great software – the Quality Analyst and their contributions to the final product.
High-quality software doesn’t happen by accident—its the result of a disciplined, deliberate process. While skilled developers are the foundation, the Quality Assurance (QA) provided by Quality Analysts, is the safety mechanism that ensures even the best code delivers the right results in the real world.

QA is not just about finding bugs; it’s about validating assumptions, aligning with user requirements, and protecting a product’s reputation. Without it, even elegant code can fail in production.

“Software testers do not make software; they only make it better.”

– Anonymous

The Role of QA in Quality Software

Well-written software is:

• Functional in real-world conditions
• Scalable and maintainable over its lifecycle
• Secure and compliant with relevant standards
• Usable by its intended audience

QA ensures that all these qualities are met. A codebase might look perfect in theory, but until it’s tested against actual workflows, edge cases, and integrations, it’s only a hypothesis.

For QA to be most effective it needs to be part of the SDLC (software development lifecycle) right from the very beginning. A proactive approach to QA helps mitigate risks, decreases the likelihood of costly rework and improves the overall efficiency of the final product. Involving QA in the beginning of any project, in the planning phase can help ensure the adaptability of the product goes beyond the initial project.

Quality Assurance as a component of software development comes in many forms, in this week’s blog post we will be concentrating on QA’s role during testing phase of the SLDC. We will highlight some common misconceptions, the importance of differentiating between types of QA practices and what we consider the most effective path forward.

UAT vs. Peer-Reviewed Code: Complementary, Not Competing

Two common QA practices—User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and peer-reviewed code—often get compared. However, they solve very different problems.

Peer Review

Peer review involves another developer examining the code for:

• Logical errors
• Maintainability issues
• Adherence to coding standards

Merits:

• Catches issues early in the development cycle
• Improves code readability and team knowledge sharing
• Encourages consistency across the codebase

Limitations:

• Focuses on how the code works, not whether it meets user needs
• May miss integration or real-world usage issues
• May not align with project goals or Statements of Work (SOW)
• May not be focused on the UI/UX

User Acceptance Testing (UAT)

UAT validates that the software works for the end user in realistic scenarios. It tests:

• Business logic correctness
• Usability and workflow alignment
• Compliance with requirements
• Typically performed by end users, stakeholders or in the case of collaborative client-vendor development scenarios, within the client’s engineering or software development team.

Merits:

• Ensures software meets business goals
• Identifies usability or functionality gaps before launch
• Validates from the customer’s perspective

Limitations:

• Conducted late in the cycle; fixes can be costly if major flaws are found
• Less focused on internal code quality
• Feedback loop in collaborative client-vendor development scenario can be slow or disconnected

Key Insight:

Peer review protects code quality; UAT protects product relevance. Well-run QA incorporates both for maximum coverage.

Developer-Side QA vs. PPS Environment

One often-overlooked distinction in QA is where and how it happens.

Developer-Side QA

• Testing performed by the developer or immediate team in their local or staging environment
• Focused on unit tests, integration tests, and immediate bug fixes
• Fast feedback loop

Advantages:

• Immediate detection of small defects
• Low cost per test run
• Maintains coding momentum

Drawbacks:

• Can suffer from bias—developers test what they expect to work
• Often misses environment-specific issues (e.g., production configurations, real data)
• Does not follow test cases written by QA Analysts

PPS Environment (Pre-Production System) QA

• A dedicated environment that mirrors production infrastructure, data conditions, and integrations
• Used for full regression testing, load testing, security validation, and UAT
• Usually occurs client side with collaborative client-vendor development scenario

Advantages:

• Identifies environment-specific and integration issues before going live
• Reduces deployment risk by simulating real-world usage
• Ensures better coverage for scalability, security, and compliance

Drawbacks:

• More costly and resource-intensive to maintain
• Requires coordination across teams
• Feedback loop in collaborative client-vendor development scenario can be slow or disconnected

Bottom line

Developer-side QA is quick and efficient, but PPS testing is where production-level confidence is built and can happen on both client and developer side in collaborative client-vendor development scenarios. Generally, client-side PPS as an exclusive method is not advised and often results in pricey rewrites that could have been prevented by implementing developer side QA.

Full-Cycle QA in Outsourced Development

When companies outsource software development, full-cycle QA testing from initial requirements through post-deployment verification is non-negotiable.

Why it matters:

1. Alignment with Client Standards – Without embedded QA, outsourced teams risk delivering technically functional software that fails client acceptance.
2. Reduced Integration Risk – Third parties often develop in isolation; full-cycle QA ensures code works with the client’s systems.
3. Trust & Accountability – A vendor who owns the QA process demonstrates maturity and reliability.
4. Faster Acceptance & Payment Cycles – Code that passes QA on delivery reduces back-and-forth rework.

Full-cycle QA activities for outsourced projects should include:

• Unit, integration, and regression testing
• UAT support and documentation
• PPS environment testing with client data mock-ups, can occur on both client and vendor side simultaneously
• Security and compliance testing
• Post-release monitoring and defect resolution

Without this, the client ends up absorbing QA costs—negating much of the financial advantage of outsourcing in the first place. When QA is restricted to the client side only this can increase development costs significantly as untested code is being tested out of context and can lead to disconnected results, delays in production deployments and eroded relationships.

Final Thoughts

QA is the keystone of high-quality software. While peer-reviewed code and developer-side testing ensure technical correctness, UAT and PPS testing confirm business and operational readiness.

When outsourcing development, insisting on full-cycle QA protects your investment, reduces delivery friction, and strengthens long-term vendor relationships.

Well-written code is only truly “good” when QA has proven it works—everywhere, for everyone, every time.