How QA Helps Prevent Release Delays and Bottlenecks

You may recognize these “Release Grinches,” which are better known as release bottlenecks. They may not look unusual, but their impact is unmistakable: delays, frustration, and stalled delivery.

Release bottlenecks are points in the software delivery process that slow down, block, or derail releases. They drive up development costs, introduce technical debt, and strain client relationships. Most importantly, they disrupt the ability to ship reliably and on time.

Often silent at first, bottlenecks build quietly, especially in fast-growing tech teams, until they begin to drag entire roadmaps off course. Missed expectations, last-minute firefighting, and delivery fatigue are all symptoms.

There’s no single cause and no silver bullet. Bottlenecks can emerge from process gaps, unclear ownership, unstable requirements, or inefficient tooling.

In this article, we’ll examine release bottlenecks through the lens of Quality Assurance (QA). Not as a final checkpoint, but as a strategic function. When embedded early and effectively, QA can eliminate many blockers before they threaten delivery.

Because done right, QA doesn’t just catch bugs. It prevents slowdowns, reduces rework, and instills confidence in the entire release process.

Let’s explore how.

Why Release Bottlenecks Are a Real Pain 

Release bottlenecks are one of the biggest stresses for the entire team throughout the development lifecycle. They have a huge impact on the quality of work and the morale of the team.

Imagine a huge ship that has been designed, assembled, and painted for a long time. And now it is ready to go to sea, standing in a dry dock. The team is on the boat. Everyone is in anxious anticipation. But the water is not entering the dock. Panic. Silence. And then someone asks: “Did we check the engine that was repaired yesterday? Do we have a launch permit?”

This is what the release bottlenecks and IT products look like. There can be quite a few reasons for what happened. But they all hurt the project, namely:

• Missed Deadlines & Delivery Delays. Whether it’s a missed demo, a late sprint delivery, or a delay in pushing updates to production, shifting requirements mid-sprint can throw off timelines fast. Features take longer to ship, teams fall out of sync, and product momentum stalls — sometimes delaying go-to-market plans, sometimes just breaking internal trust
  
• Higher development and support costs. Money plays a big role in development. If the deadlines are extended, this leads to additional costs for the customer or a reduction in expected features due to a lack of funds for their development.
  
• Damaged customer trust. Reduced trust in release readiness where everything goes wrong. As noted above, this plays a negative role both for the current work and for further relationships within the team, and between the team and the customer.
  
• Slower feedback loops. Bottlenecks delay the feedback cycle between developers, QA, and stakeholders. This means bugs are found later, features are validated too late, and rework becomes more expensive. The longer it takes to learn from each iteration, the slower the whole team moves.
  
• Technical debt turned into business risk. When quality assurance is rushed or skipped due to pressure to release, technical debt accumulates. Over time, this debt reduces system stability and makes every future change harder. Eventually, what started as small compromises turn into serious risks to business continuity.
  
• Increased risk of failure in production. Without proper QA coverage or release checks, there's a higher chance that critical defects will make it into production. Each such incident damages user trust, drives up support costs, and may even result in reputational or legal consequences.
  
• Loss of strategic agility. When teams are stuck fighting fires from previous releases or untangling technical messes, they lose the ability to respond quickly to new opportunities. Bottlenecks don’t just delay releases—they delay innovation, product-market fit, and strategic pivots.

Where Things Go Off the Rails: Common Bottlenecks

In any project, bottlenecks can arise at various stages, causing delays, frustration, and misalignment between teams. These obstacles, often subtle at first, can snowball and affect timelines, quality, and team morale. In the world of QA, bottlenecks are particularly critical because they can directly impact the testing process and, ultimately, the end product's quality. Whether it's due to unclear communication, resource limitations, or over-reliance on certain tools, identifying and addressing bottlenecks early is essential to keeping projects on track.

It is quite often theoretically clear what needs to be done when you encounter a particular problem. However, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish one from another and quickly orient yourself and choose the right path for solving them. Below, we’ll look at practical examples that our QA team has encountered while working on various projects.

Requirements Change Mid-Sprint

In one project, requirements weren’t written as traditional user stories. Instead, the design team used Figma mockups with embedded notes, often treated as the single source of truth.
In theory, that was efficient. In practice? Chaos.

Designs were frequently updated mid-sprint without clear communication. A story already in development could change overnight because a stakeholder had new ideas or missed edge cases.
Developers paused to re-clarify the scope. QA chased outdated test cases that no longer matched the UI.

Worse, the mockups only showed the “happy path”. System integrations, error handling, or legacy interactions were afterthoughts. During testing, QA had to chase answers. Last-minute fixes became the norm. Rework was constant.

What You See

This wasn’t an isolated issue — it’s a familiar pattern in teams struggling with shifting requirements.

What it looks like on the ground: scope creep, unstable stories, and unclear or moving expectations.
Teams feel like they’re building on quicksand — requirements change mid-sprint, acceptance criteria evolve after development starts, and priorities shift without warning.
Developers are frustrated. QA loses confidence in what to validate. Product Owners slip into micromanagement instead of guiding strategically.

The Turning Point

Things came to a head during a sprint review. Several features didn’t match what stakeholders expected, and no one could explain why. The team realized they were all working from different versions of the truth.

That led to a reset.

They agreed on one rule: no feature goes into development without clear, reviewed requirements. Product Owners made sure stories were refined before the sprint. QA started reviewing those requirements early and writing test cases before any code was written.

This change gave everyone a shared understanding from the start, and the constant rework finally stopped.

How Solve It

Here’s what made the difference:

• Lock feature requirements before development begins.
• Align Product, QA, and Dev early through shared refinement and review.
• Involve QA early to test requirements and write test cases in advance.

Testing Happens Too Late

In one project, an external vendor team was focused on delivering features fast to impress stakeholders. The product wasn’t live yet, but development was moving quickly — code was being pushed regularly, and demos were happening often to show progress.

But QA came in too late.

By the time the QA team joined, most of the product was already built and deployed in the demo environment. They had to play catch-up — reviewing stories after the fact, trying to reverse-engineer requirements, and rushing to create test cases for features that were already marked as “done.” There wasn’t enough time to build a solid testing approach or fully understand how the system worked.

Most of the testing ended up happening during regression, usually the day before a demo. That’s when critical bugs started to show up, right when there was no time left to fix them properly. This led to delays, last-minute rework, and growing concerns about product quality.

What Usually Happens

QA joins too late — only after development is “done” and features are already in the demo or staging environment. They’re left catching up on work they weren’t part of shaping. Testing feels rushed. Important bugs are found late. Deadlines slip, and confidence in the product takes a hit.

How the Team Responded

After a tough sprint review, the team raised the issue during a retrospective. The takeaway was clear: QA needed to be involved earlier.

From that point, QA started working with product owners during story grooming and sprint planning. Instead of waiting until features were built, they reviewed requirements ahead of time, asked questions early, and wrote test cases upfront. They also introduced Golden Path Testing — a lightweight set of test cases for critical system flows, run daily to catch regressions early.

It helped. Fewer surprises before demos. Fewer critical bugs. A smoother, more predictable delivery process.

What Helped

• Involve QA early — during planning, not just after development.
• Review requirements together and write test cases upfront.
• Run basic daily Happy Path tests to catch issues before they grow.

Not Understandable Business Impact

One principle of testing is that it depends on context. When that context isn’t clear — or isn’t understood well enough — testing starts to miss the mark.

In one case, the QA team was testing a new feature on an e-commerce platform that let users filter products by category. During testing, they found the feature slowed down significantly when used on large inventories (500+ items). Developers confirmed the issue but couldn’t say how serious it was without knowing the business impact.

Would it affect customer satisfaction? Would it hurt conversion rates? Could it impact revenue?

The QA team didn’t have those answers either. Without a clear picture of what mattered most to the business, they couldn’t confidently say whether this was a critical bug or a low-priority edge case. As a result, important issues risked being overlooked, while less important ones took up time and attention.

Common Signs

Testing focuses on the wrong things. QA may dig deep into edge cases while missing bugs that affect user experience, revenue, or core functionality. Time gets spent on low-risk issues, while high-impact ones slip through, simply because their business impact isn’t clear.

What Helped Turn It Around

To fix this, the QA team started meeting regularly with the Product Owner. These short check-ins gave them space to clarify open questions, ask about business goals, and get a better sense of which features mattered most.

Over time, this helped the team shift its focus, spending less time on noise and more time testing the things that moved the needle.

• Align QA with business goals through regular check-ins with product leadership
• Make sure QA understands user priorities, revenue risks, and customer pain points
• Encourage questions during planning to connect the testing effort with real business outcomes
  

QA Is Not Fully Informed

This kind of gap often shows up during release prep. In one case, a new version of a mobile app was being pushed out — it included a mix of new features, performance updates, and bug fixes. Everything looked on track, but the QA team didn’t have full visibility into what was actually included.

Without detailed release notes from the product team, the QA engineer focused on the features that had been highlighted. But several smaller (yet important) changes weren’t clearly communicated. As a result, critical bugs in those areas were missed, and the team wasn’t sure if a high-priority fix had even made it into the build.

Where It Breaks Down

QA is left working with partial or outdated information. They test what they think is important, but key changes — especially in less visible areas — slip through. Features that matter to the business go untested, key fixes aren’t verified, and confidence in the release drops. It’s not about effort — it’s about missing context.

What We Did Differently

The team started holding regular 3 Amigos meetings — short sessions with QA, developers, and the product owner. These helped everyone get on the same page before development started: what’s being built, what’s changing, and what needs special attention.

It wasn’t about long meetings — it was about closing the communication gaps early, before they became release risks.

What Helped

• Hold regular 3 Amigos meetings. These short syncs between QA, developers, and the product owner helped clarify what’s being built, what’s changing, and what to watch out for — before development even starts. It gave QA early context, so they weren’t left guessing what required attention.
  
• Share clear and complete release notes. Even small changes can carry a business impact. By sending detailed release notes — not just highlights — the product team made it easier for QA to focus on what changed, spot potential gaps, and verify key fixes.
  
• Set basic communication rules. The team agreed on one thing: no silent updates, no surprise scope changes. If something shifted, it had to be shared with everyone. This helped prevent last-minute confusion and reduced the risk of bugs slipping through unnoticed.
  

Features Arrive Too Late for Testing

This is one of those issues almost every QA team has experienced. A feature gets dropped into the dev environment just before regression starts — not because someone planned it that way, but because timelines slipped or priorities shifted. And suddenly, QA is asked to test it... fast.

Someone might say, “It’s nothing special — just a quick check.” But it’s rarely that simple. These last-minute additions often become the biggest release risks.

In one project, this exact scenario happened more than once. A feature would arrive hours before regression testing, with no buffer left to fix or retest anything. QA couldn’t run full coverage. Bugs slipped through. Sometimes the feature went live unverified. Sometimes it got pulled at the last minute. Either way, it added unnecessary stress and avoidable risk.

The Core Problem

Stories or bug fixes are delivered just hours before testing. QA has no time to validate, fix, or retest. Testing becomes rushed or incomplete. Releases go live with unverified features, or last-minute rollbacks happen under pressure.

The Process Shift

To fix this, the team agreed on a clear rule: all features and bug fixes must be delivered to the dev environment at least one full day before the release. That gave QA time to test and developers time to react.

The timeline varied based on scope, but the principle was consistent — no more last-minute surprises.

What Helped

• Set a clear delivery cut-off (e.g., 24 hours before regression)
• Treat anything late as out-of-scope unless timelines shift
• Make the cut-off visible on sprint boards or release calendars
  

QA Is Understaffed and Overloaded

As more features are delivered, the number of test cases grows — and QA starts to fall behind. We’ve seen this happen firsthand: sprint after sprint, the scope of regression expands while the time to test shrinks. QA does their best, but eventually something gives.

In one project, the test case scope ballooned to over a thousand test cases. And with each sprint, that number kept growing as new features and bug fixes were added. It became clear that regression testing couldn’t keep up — not without burning out the team or cutting corners.

What Slows Things Down

QA is overloaded. Test cycles take longer, edge cases get missed, and feedback is delayed. The backlog grows, and regression becomes too heavy to handle manually. It’s not a skill issue — it’s a capacity issue. Over time, this slows delivery and adds risk to every release.

How You Can Get Ahead of It

Start by automating the most predictable and repetitive test cases — the ones you run every time. This alone can free up your QA team to focus on more complex testing and reduce the pressure during regression.

What Worked

• Automate repeatable, high-priority test cases
• Use manual testing for new or high-risk areas
• Monitor test scope growth and adjust QA bandwidth when needed

Lack of Compatible Devices or Stable Testing Environments

A solid test plan is only as good as the tools and environments behind it. In one project, the QA team was testing a mobile app update with several UI changes and new features. The app needed to work smoothly across a wide range of Android and iOS devices — old and new.

But the team didn’t have access to enough real devices to properly test across combinations of OS versions and screen sizes. The result? Gaps in coverage and the risk of bugs showing up only in production.

The Testing Gap

QA can’t fully validate features because of limited access to the right devices, OS versions, or stable environments. Real-world user conditions are hard to replicate, and bugs often show up too late — especially on specific browsers, operating systems, or device types.

Improving Test Reach

The team turned to cloud-based testing platforms like BrowserStack to cover more ground without needing to own every device. Emulators helped simulate different environments and gave the team more confidence in how the product would perform across systems.

Key Actions

• Use cloud-based device farms for cross-platform testing
• Run critical flows on both emulators and real devices
• Plan environment needs ahead of time during sprint planning

You’re Over-Relying on Automation

Automation can be a major time-saver — but only if it’s focused on the right things. In one complex project made up of multiple microservices managed by different teams, automation was heavily used to speed up testing. On paper, everything looked fine. But two major issues came up during the release process.

Where Automation Falls Short

First, there were false positives. The tests confirmed that services were integrated, but skipped over the user interface. As a result, serious UI/UX issues weren’t caught early.

Second, there were false negatives. Some tests failed not because of actual bugs, but because they were using the wrong test data. Instead of saving time, the team spent hours digging into failed test runs, trying to figure out if the problem was real.

Automation was running — but it wasn’t catching what actually mattered to the user or the business.

How the Team Rebalanced

To fix this, the team adjusted their approach. Automation was kept for high-priority, repeatable scenarios — the kind that benefit from speed and consistency. But they added more manual and exploratory testing to cover UI, UX, and edge cases that automation missed.

They also made it a habit to review and update the automated test suite regularly — to keep it relevant, avoid noise, and make sure it didn’t overlook critical logic or visual issues.

What Helped

• Use automation for stable, repeatable test cases
• Balance it with manual testing for UI/UX and complex logic
• Regularly review and update the test suite to avoid blind spots

MEV’s QA Principles for Smoother Releases

From our experience in real-world projects, we’ve found that successful releases start with strong QA practices from day one. Here are the key principles we follow to ensure smoother, more predictable releases:

‍QA joins from day one (Sprint 0)‍

Involving QA from the very beginning (Sprint 0) ensures:

• Shared understanding of features and business goals
• Early detection of risks and edge cases
• Test plans aligned with delivery timelines

This reduces surprises mid-sprint and prevents rework later on.

Test cases are written during development, not after

Rather than writing tests after development, our teams create test cases during implementation. This enables:

• Earlier detection of functional gaps and edge cases
• Test coverage that’s ready when features are complete
• QA to be fully familiar with features before execution begins

Early test design shortens feedback loops and reduces time spent on rework later in the sprint.

Automated tests are built into CI/CD pipelines

Automation is built into our continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) workflows to:

• Validate core functionality daily
• Detect critical issues before regressions occur
• Maintain confidence in release stability

Continuous validation supports rapid, reliable delivery and reduces the risk of post-release failures.

We combine automation with exploratory testing.

Automation handles the predictable, but human insight catches the unexpected. Our approach:

• Leverages exploratory testing for complex, usability-sensitive cases
• Uses automation for repeatable, high-value scenarios
• Balances efficiency with real-world user experience

This dual approach ensures both coverage and depth, helping us uncover both technical defects and usability concerns.

Defect trends help us plan smarter for future sprints

Tracking and analyzing defect trends provides valuable insights into the quality of our product and development process. By identifying recurring issues, high-risk areas, or frequently impacted components, we can:

• Refine our testing focus in future sprints
• Allocate resources more effectively
• Improve sprint planning with data-driven decisions

This proactive approach helps ensure continuous improvement and reduces long-term technical debt.

QA, developers, and product collaborate daily with shared tools

Collaboration between QA, developers, and product managers is essential for delivering high-quality software. We work as a unified team by:

• Using shared tools and platforms for visibility and transparency
• Participating in daily standups to align on priorities and blockers
• Communicating frequently throughout the sprint lifecycle

This close collaboration ensures everyone is aligned on goals, understands the requirements clearly, and can respond quickly to any issues that arise, ultimately leading to more successful and predictable releases.

Final Thoughts

QA isn’t just about finding bugs — it’s about supporting predictable, reliable delivery.

Most release bottlenecks don’t start in QA, but they often surface there first. When QA is brought in late or left out of planning, issues go undetected until they become blockers. But when QA is involved early, aligned with the business, and integrated into day-to-day collaboration, it helps everyone stay focused, reduce rework, and avoid last-minute surprises.

Still, QA alone doesn’t keep delivery on track. That takes shared ownership across Product, Development, and QA — built on clear communication and aligned priorities.

At MEV, we help teams build that alignment early, test smarter, and deliver with more confidence.

‍