There is a dangerous assumption that runs through many technology organizations: if we keep doing the same things, only faster, or with more tools, we will eventually do them better. It is a comforting idea because it does not require us to question anything, only to accelerate.
The problem is that it is false.
In his book Peak, Professor Anders Ericsson dismantles precisely this myth: performance does not improve because of the amount of practice, but because of the quality of that practice. More specifically, improvement comes from the ability to identify where you are failing and train exactly there. Not where you feel comfortable or where you are already competent. You must train precisely at the point where your performance breaks down.
This is where we encounter the first collision with reality for many teams: accurately identifying where the real problems lie is far from trivial. In fact, we rarely do it well from within. Proximity to the problem distorts diagnosis. We normalize inefficiencies, justify mistakes, and, quite often, confuse activity with progress.
A team can execute hundreds of tests, deploy continuously, or adopt the latest tools and still be far from achieving real quality. And that happens not because it is not training, but because it is training badly.
This is where an uncomfortable but necessary role comes into play: the QA Coach. Someone external to the system who is not influenced by its habits and assumptions, who observes without operational bias and, above all, knows how to identify where the real quality bottleneck lies.
Because improvement is not about doing more. It is about doing better what you do worst.
The technology trap: when safety creates more risk
The history of technology is full of examples where introducing an improvement did not produce the expected outcome. One of the most illustrative occurred in the 1980s with the introduction of ABS braking systems in cars.
On paper, it was revolutionary: greater control, reduced risk of wheel lock-up, increased safety. And yet something counterintuitive happened. Many drivers, feeling safer, began driving more aggressively. The result was not a proportional reduction in accidents but, in some cases, the opposite.
More technology did not necessarily lead to better behavior. It simply changed the context.
Today, something very similar is happening with artificial intelligence. Organizations adopt it enthusiastically, integrate it into processes, celebrate its ability to automate, generate, and accelerate… but often forget a key question: are we using it correctly?
Using AI does not guarantee success, just as having ABS does not make you a better driver.
Without direction, AI amplifies both strengths and weaknesses. It can accelerate delivery or accelerate mistakes. It can improve productivity or multiply waste.
As has already been argued in many contexts, technology alone does not create value; value comes from managing it consciously and aligning it with clear objectives.
And this is where the need for someone who understands not only the tool but also the system in which it is applied becomes apparent again. A QA Coach does not introduce more technology. A QA Coach introduces judgment.
They help teams avoid confusing speed with direction, avoid adopting practices because they are fashionable rather than impactful, and ensure that quality is not an accidental by-product but a deliberately designed outcome.
Without direction, no improvement is possible
There is a quote attributed to Seneca that captures the problem facing many organizations with brutal clarity: “For those who do not know where they are going, no wind is favorable.”
Most teams do not fail because they lack effort. They fail because they lack alignment.
Every team optimizes its own local performance. Every individual tries to do their part well. Every initiative aims to create value. But if there is no clear articulation of the overall objective, of what “quality” truly means in that context, all that effort can end up scattered.
And the most dangerous part is that it often comes with a sense of progress.
We improve test coverage, reduce deployment times, adopt new tools, but what happens to stability, production defects, or user experience?
Activity does not necessarily equal impact.
A QA Coach acts as the alignment vector that many organizations are missing. They do not merely identify technical problems; they redefine the framework through which those problems are interpreted.
What does quality mean for this team? Where is the greatest risk really located? Which practices are generating value and which are simply generating noise?
Without that clarity, any improvement is, at best, partial and, at worst, irrelevant.
The invisible cost of not having a QA Coach
Choosing not to hire a QA Coach is not a neutral decision. It has consequences, even if they are not always obvious.
It results in teams that believe they are improving when they are not, in investments in tools that fail to generate a return and in practices being perpetuated simply because “that’s how we’ve always done it.”
And above all, it leads to a gradual loss of focus. If no one challenges the system from the outside, the system ends up validating itself.
The paradox is that many organizations pursue excellence by increasing resources: more people, more tools, more automation. Yet they rarely invest in the one thing that truly changes performance: the quality of training.
And training well requires something uncomfortable: accepting that you cannot clearly see your own mistakes.
That is why the question is not whether your team needs to improve quality. The real question is whether you are willing to look at it from the outside.
Remember: training more will not make you better. But training where you fail, and knowing where you fail, will.
And that almost always starts with someone who is not part of the problem, but part of the solution.
