Balancing between stakeholders wanting quick fixes and the need for thorough testing is crucial for maintaining both project momentum and product quality. Here’s how we can handle this situation effectively 1. Communicate the Risks of Skipping Testing 2. Emphasize Quality as a Long-Term Goal 3. Offer a Compromise: Prioritize Critical Fixes 4. Implement Agile Testing Practices 5. Set Realistic Expectations 6. Propose Fast-Track Testing Strategies 7. Offer a Post-Release Review By framing testing as a safeguard rather than a delay, and offering compromises that balance urgency and quality, we can effectively manage stakeholder expectations while ensuring a stable product.

"Stakeholders want quick fixes". I'm going to assume that this is a given. But the word "fixes" is interesting. "Fixes" implies bugs. Are the bugs there because... of previous "quick fixes" or other "quickly done" work. Well guess what... that work wasn't *done*. "Testing is crucial". The tone of the question implies a certain approach to producing work which leaves testing to the end, under compressed time because everything is a rush. Get a grip on your process. You can't move as fast as you think you can move. "How do you navigate this balancing act": It isn't a balancing act. If you were producing stuff that didn't need to be fixed, you'd have more time.

Speed over Quality can be great indicator of architectural and application resilience. In situations where business expectations are going against testing procedures: 1. Prioritize testing to high traffic, business critical cases. 2. Automate manual testing where applicable. Reuse or extend existing automated test cases to cover wider scenarios. 3. Increase architectural investments in strategic application design and planning in brand new systems with focus on testability. 4. Retrospective analysis of project requirements and design. 5. Choose faster options for testing: If APIs are involved in the application, instead of testing 100 scenarios in the UI, limit UI testing to critical path and use API testing for variation in use cases

Balancing stakeholder expectations for quick fixes with the need for thorough testing requires clear communication and prioritization. I emphasize the long-term benefits of testing by explaining how it prevents larger issues down the road, ultimately saving time and resources. I also propose incremental solutions—delivering smaller, functional fixes while ensuring that proper testing is built into the timeline. Collaboration is key, so I work closely with stakeholders to align on priorities, risks, and deadlines, ensuring both quality and timely results.

Quick fixes doesn't mean we fix one place and create new issue on another place, so avoid this situatiuon based on the severity of the issue testing must be done. Stakeholder must also understand the situation and provide support.

Balancing the pressure for quick fixes with the need for solid testing is definitely a real-world challenge. Stakeholders often push for fast solutions, but we know that skipping testing can lead to more issues later. One approach is to focus on the riskiest areas first - this way, you're not testing everything, but you're covering the most critical parts. Small, incremental releases can also keep stakeholders happy by showing visible progress without compromising too much on quality. And honestly, sometimes it's about clear communication - explaining the potential long-term costs of skipping testing can go a long way. Automated testing is another game-changer.

One strategy worked for us was to start a war room to tackle the scenario. This involved QA, Dev/Design , architect and devops. Following approach worked. 1. QA would start testing the bug with different user roles, platforms and timezones. 2. Parallelly keep anazylising and profile the level of impact. 3. Start fixing issue based on Most important or Most affected audience. 4. Repeat above steps until the fire is out. Its a known fact now that system failure can happen (remember crowdstrike) and does take time to fix. Over panicking can cause more damage. Approach the problem with a clear goal in your head.

Balancing quick fixes with thorough testing requires clear communication and prioritization. First, identify the critical fixes and focus on delivering those quickly while explaining the potential risks of bypassing testing. Use automated testing tools for faster verification and adopt a phased release strategy to implement changes incrementally. Regularly update stakeholders on progress, emphasizing the importance of testing for long-term stability. This approach helps deliver immediate results while maintaining quality and reducing future risks.

That is a challenge many IT teams face. We should definetaly communicate with the stakeholders and explain the importance of tests after that improve and implement automated test phases. But how ? Like this : First we should define goals and scope of automation like "regression tests", "high risk areas", "time consuming or repetative tasks" , "stable features" etc. Second we should build a robust test framework and create modular , reusable test cases. We should start with small tests and continue to bigger tests.

Balancing the need for quick fixes with the importance of thorough testing involves strategic communication & planning: 1. Communicate Risks: Clearly explain the risks of skipping or rushing testing, including potential long-term issues 2. Prioritize Fixes: Identify and prioritize the most critical fixes that need immediate attention 3. Incremental Testing: Implement a phased approach where critical fixes are tested first, followed by less urgent ones 4. Automate Testing: Use automated testing tools to speed up the process without compromising quality 5. Set Realistic Timelines: Negotiate realistic timelines that allow for adequate testing 6. Regular Updates: Keep stakeholders informed about progress & any issues encountered during testing.