The Biggest Misinformation in the QA-Testing Discipline

The world of QA and testing has been clouded by misconceptions for decades. One persistent myth has been the strict separation between “Manual” and “Automation” testers. The truth? A tester is a tester—regardless of the tools or methods they use. Testing is about delivering valuable results, and the approach is just a means to that end.

Recently, I came across an article titled Traditional Testing vs. Agile Testing – Should You Replace the Old Testing Approach? by Mutil Makadia. It highlights a common problem: the tendency to pit “traditional” and “agile” testing against each other, often relying on outdated or misleading definitions.

The article starts by defining traditional testing in a way that simply describes Waterfall delivery, not the essence of testing itself. For example, it claims that traditional testing “helps in the identification of the maximum number of defects.” But where’s the evidence? In a truly agile team, many issues are surfaced and resolved during development through collaboration and clarity—often before they become defects. These aren’t always formally logged; they’re handled through the team’s user stories and ongoing dialogue.

Another claim is that traditional testing “ensures a quality product.” However, research and real-world experience show that Waterfall projects often deliver features that customers never use. If a product doesn’t meet real needs, can we really call it “quality”?

The article also lists disadvantages of traditional testing, but these are mostly symptoms of Waterfall’s delivery challenges—not of testing as a discipline.

The article’s definition of “Agile/Modern Testing” is really just a definition of agile, iterative delivery. It says agile testing “can be performed using automated tools,” which is true, but automation isn’t a cure-all. Effective agile testing combines automation with human insight, covering both static (reviews, collaboration, confirmation) and dynamic (actual code execution) testing.

It also claims that agile testing suffers from “limited documentation,” making it hard to specify and communicate testing components. In reality, agile teams utilize metrics, burndown charts, and constant communication to keep everyone aligned—including those involved in testing progress.

When people try to define the difference between agile and traditional testing, they’re really describing the difference between agile and waterfall delivery frameworks. The fundamentals of testing, critical thinking, analysis, and validation remain the same. Whether you move a tester from a waterfall environment to an agile team or vice versa, they’ll still be testing. There may be a transition period as they adjust to the team’s workflow, but their core skills remain relevant.

Testing is not about the methodology; it’s about delivering quality and value, regardless of the framework. The tools, processes, and labels may change, but the mission stays the same.

Want to make your QA team more efficient and effective, no matter your delivery methodology? Ready to transform or enhance your team, department, or organization?
Contact us today and let’s work together to achieve outstanding results.