In the previous post, I wrote about navigating the Speed-Quality Dilemma in Product Development.

This post is part of the series – Accelerating Delivery Without Losing Quality: Lessons From a Team’s Internal Struggle.

In this post, I will talk about how we fixed it internally for my teams.

Optimise the Release Testing Cycle

What Changed

We introduced an internal release process that added a short “sanity” test phase before full regression. This small addition reduced the mean time to test by 20% and caught regressions earlier, decreasing downstream firefighting.

Key Takeaways

• Automate what you can – a lightweight, automated smoke test cuts manual effort.
• Keep it fast – the goal is to surface critical failures early, not to exhaust every test case.
• Document the change – a quick README in the repo explains the new steps and the rationale.

---

Master the Trade‑Off Between “Quick Fix” and “Right‑Way”

The Real‑World Question

“If we can get it to the customer now, should we use a hacky workaround or invest time in a robust solution?”

Decision Matrix

Scenario	Quick Fix?	Full Fix?	Impact
Minor UI glitch	✅	❌	Low risk
Data integrity bug	❌	✅	High risk
Feature enhancement	✅ (prototype)	✅ (release)	Depends on usage

Practical Tips

1. Ask “What’s the cost of a failure?”
   • If the impact is high, lean toward the full fix.
2. Set a “review deadline.”
   • A quick fix gets a follow‑up review in 2‑4 weeks.
3. Allocate “buffer time” in the sprint for revisiting hacks.