Software development firms exist within an environment where the consequences aren't always that dire. If a brain surgeon messes up, oof. Not good. If a pilot makes a mistake, the consequences can be severe. But what happens when a software product is full of bugs and isn't functional? Well, nothing, really. The stakes aren't all that high, so the overall product suffers.

Now, the size of a firm can have a direct impact on quality. It’s not like we’d expect David to lift the same amount as Goliath. In this instance, smaller firms are unfortunately stuck between a rock and a hard place. Seek specialization, which can be expensive, or take a broader approach. Either way, quality isn’t assured. Bad software, whether created by a massive firm or start-up organization, frequently lacks tangible consequences businesses can see. Has this contributed to the quality issue? Are firms more lackadaisical with development now than in the past? Let’s investigate this rabbit hole.

New Levels Of Difficulty

A contributing reason to the decline in quality is the increasing complexity of software systems. Ensuring that all parts of the system work correctly and that there are no bugs or defects becomes increasingly challenging. This complexity also makes it harder to maintain software, resulting in more downtime and increased costs. You would think to battle this complexity, organizations would simplify the development, integration, and implementation processes. Unfortunately, we are unable to get out of our own way. Too many cooks in the kitchen try to contribute but only complicate the process further. When professionals in non-technical roles try to influence the development of a product they don’t truly understand, the quality will suffer. That’s just how the world works, and that pill can be tough to swallow for those who let their ego get in the way.

Crunch Time

Another major factor contributing to software's poor quality is the pressure to release software quickly. In today's fast-paced business environment, software companies are often pressured to quickly release new products and features to keep up with the competition. This can lead to shortcuts in the development process, resulting in lower-quality software. Software developers may not have enough time to thoroughly test their code, leading to the release of software that contains bugs and errors.

Additionally, there is often a lack of investment in software quality assurance and testing. Many companies view software testing as a cost center rather than a strategic investment. As a result, they may not allocate the necessary resources to ensure that software is thoroughly tested before being released. This lack of investment can result in software that is not reliable, secure, or user-friendly, leading to lost revenue and decreased customer satisfaction. These are things to be avoided, obviously.

It doesn’t matter whether your firm has access to automation or not. Testing is vital. You wouldn’t put a car on the road unless you know it runs and is safe for passengers to use. You wouldn’t ship a bike if you knew the chain would break immediately. The reality is no different for software.

Streamline And Refine

An added layer of difficulty is that collaboration is the main way to get quality back on track. Improving software quality requires a concerted effort by software developers, businesses, and consumers to prioritize quality and invest in the necessary resources to ensure that software is thoroughly tested and meets users' needs. This includes investing in better testing tools and methodologies, establishing clear coding standards and best practices, and prioritizing user feedback and testing throughout development. By working together and prioritizing quality, we can improve software quality and create more reliable, secure, and user-friendly software products.

However, if resume-driven development takes over and people are more interested in creating mockups in Figma than actual products, your business will never modernize. The poor quality will hamstring your ability to seek out new ventures, and it’s about time to get rid of the inhibitors.

‍