Software teams face pressure on speed and cost. Quality often looks like overhead until real numbers tell a different story. Testing works like insurance. Pay a small premium now to cut the chance and size of losses later. Useful signals sit in churn rates, support hours, rework in issue trackers, failed handoffs, and regulatory exposure. Small steps matter. Pair testers with developers, remove waste, count saved hours, and share clear wins. Then link quality work to faster release cycles, steadier user experience, and fewer public incidents. The message is simple. Quality is a business choice. Pay upfront or pay later with interest.
In this episode, I talk with Vitaly Sharovatov about the economics of testing. We ask how testers can sell quality to managers who think in money, risk, and time. Vitaly frames testing like insurance. You pay now to lower the chance or impact of pain later. He shows where to find numbers that speak. Churn, support hours, rework in Jira, failed handoffs, and regulatory risk. Start small. Pair with developers, cut waste, count saved hours, and share clear wins. Then aim bigger. Shorter time to market, better UX, fewer angry users.
"When you collaborate with them, they also are happy with your new approach and they will support you in the management team meetings and so on. So you get some people around you who always support these activities then." - Vitaly Sharovatov
As a quality enthusiast, Vitaly Sharovatov believes that people should take pride in their work and companies should aim to produce high-quality products. He has spent the last 23 years in IT, focusing on engineering, QA, and mentorship.He is also a huge animal lover and has saved and raised more than 50 cats and dogs.
In the latest Software Testing Unleashed episode, I sat down with quality enthusiast Vitaly Sharovatov to discuss a challenge that’s all too familiar for testers: how do you make the business case for quality and testing to people who care about dollars, churn, and metrics? As Vitaly Sharovatov points out, testers and managers often seem to speak entirely different languages—even if they're both speaking English.
Managers run on KPIs, OKRs, and financial targets. Testers, meanwhile, focus on risk mitigation, bug reports, and user experience. The disconnect means testers can be perceived as gatekeepers or blockers, while managers sometimes push releases without fully understanding the risks. “We lack common understanding of why testing is done for the company,” says Vitaly Sharovatov. The consequences aren’t theoretical: misunderstandings can lead to botched releases, lost customers, and, in extreme cases, public disasters.
One crucial insight from the conversation is that the language of economics is the universal bridge. If testers frame their recommendations in terms managers understand—costs, risks, savings—doors start to open. Vitaly Sharovatov shares that managers see testers and developers as gatekeepers blocking the path to revenue, unless the value is clear. He points to insurance as a parallel: we pay regularly to reduce the harm if something bad happens, even though the benefit is invisible unless there’s an incident.
Quality, in this sense, is an investment. Testers can’t guarantee total bug-free releases, but they can model how their work reduces potential financial harm and risk—just like insurance. If you prove the cost of churning customers due to persistent bugs, or estimate the financial fallout from customer support handling repetitive incidents, managers start listening.
Making the economic case for quality starts with evidence—and testers are well positioned to gather it. The episode highlights how testers can tap into multiple departments:
Marketing: How much money is lost due to churn? Are customers quitting because of bugs or poor UX?
Sales: What features or issues block deals? Would improved quality win more contracts?
Customer Support: How many man-hours are spent resolving bug-related issues?
Vitaly Sharovatov suggests that testers can build partnerships across teams, collect statistics, and quantify the impact of poor quality. Analyze your own workflow: repetitive testing, bugs bouncing between dev and QA, or delays in releases are all measurable costs. Even small improvements add up. As Richie notes, testers possess critical thinking and an eye for processes—a perfect skill set to spot inefficiencies others overlook.
So, how does a tester begin this transition, especially if their schedule is packed and their voice is often ignored? The episode offers actionable ideas:
Start small: Identify repetitive, wasteful tasks. Pair up with developers who frequently produce untestable features, and help them build quality in from the start.
Gather data: Track how many hours are spent retesting, redeveloping, or handling bug reports. Present these stats to your leads to gain credibility.
Build credibility: Once you show you can save direct costs, managers are more likely to support bigger improvements (like refining release processes or even pitching costs for churn reduction).
Involve other departments: Ask marketing, sales, and customer support for feedback and quantifiable pain points.
Frame suggestions in terms of business outcomes: Instead of “we need more testing,” say “we can save X man-hours—or prevent Y in lost revenue—with better QA in these areas.”
The goal isn’t just job security or process improvement—it’s to become a partner who enables the business to succeed, not a blocker. As Vitaly Sharovatov puts it, “If you prove you can save money, only then can you introduce new initiatives.” Managers are not adversaries; they’re simply wired to respond to numbers. Help them report better metrics and everyone wins.
Testing isn’t just about following best practices or running through checklists—it’s about understanding your company’s context, its unique risks, and opportunities. By translating quality into the language of business, testers can shift from being “soulless cogs” to proud contributors whose work truly matters. And as this episode demonstrates, economics can be the lever that finally gets quality the respect—and resources—it deserves.