As quality professionals, we operate within organizational structures and processes designed to help us do our job better. These rules often act as safety nets — improving consistency, reducing risks, and supporting successful product delivery.
But what happens when those rules don’t account for the exceptions that make real-world work efficient?
This article isn’t a call to challenge authority for the sake of it — instead, it’s an invitation to reflect on when breaking the rules is not only acceptable, but necessary.
The Process Wasn’t Made for Every Situation
QA processes often rely on checklists, predefined flows, and rigid criteria. But reality rarely follows the script. Sometimes, strictly adhering to the process delays delivery or even compromises product value.
We see this shift in other disciplines too. Developers are now encouraged to write self-explanatory code rather than over-document every line. Why? Because documentation isn’t the goal — understanding is. The same principle should apply to QA.
The Danger of Inflexible Processes
When part of the process can’t be completed — due to lack of time, context, or information — teams often freeze. No one wants to move forward without “checking the box,” and that stalls progress.
Have you ever been in the middle of a regression run and forced to justify each and every test case you chose to include (or exclude)? That level of bureaucracy slows everyone down and adds no value if applied blindly.
Expert Judgment: The Unwritten Rule
Breaking a rule isn’t recklessness. It’s judgment. It’s experience. It’s the ability to assess context, risk, and goals — and then act accordingly.
That’s what we call expert judgment: the intuition, common sense, and situational awareness that come with time and practice. It’s not about skipping steps at random, but about knowing which rules matter most in each scenario and being able to defend your choices with confidence.
Would you treat a release with one small bugfix ticket the same as a major deployment with 20 changes?
Of course not. So why assume a single rigid process fits all cases?
Breaking Rules… Responsibly
The key is not to institutionalize chaos, but to acknowledge that exceptions exist and that our processes must evolve to support them. That means:
- Evaluating the impact of not following a step.
- Communicating the deviation with your team or tech lead.
- Documenting the decision (even informally).
- Learning from the case to improve the process.
Final Thoughts: Rules Should Be Alive, Not Sacred
Processes are meant to serve the team — not constrain it. If they don’t allow room for exceptions, they become bottlenecks. As QA professionals and leaders, we have a duty to challenge what doesn’t work and push for continuous improvement.
Breaking the rules is okay — if you understand why, can explain your reasoning, and it aligns with delivering value.
Top comments (0)