Bad software can kill companies: Why ignoring QA is a strategic mistake

1. Real-World consequences of inadequate QA

Let’s start with gaming:

Cyberpunk 2077 had 13 million pre-orders. A fanbase ready to love it. Then came the bugs: broken NPCs, game-breaking crashes, public apologies, mass refunds. CD Projekt Red lost 75% of its market cap in the aftermath – not because they lacked vision, but because they shipped too fast without controlling quality.

Not into gaming? Let’s talk enterprise:

• Robinhood went offline during high-volume trades, eroding customer trust
• Tesla faced recalls due to software bugs in autopilot, safety and brand credibility were at stake
• Barclays Bank (2025) suffered a 3-day outage, costing up to £7.5 million in compensation. The root causes? Complex, legacy systems lacking proper QA protocols
• NHS (2016) lost over 709,000 pieces of medical correspondence due to a software flaw, risking patient lives
• Boeing 737 Max crashes were partly blamed on faulty MCAS software – tragically resulting in 346 deaths. Enhanced QA and testing could have identified these critical flaws
• RBS Group IT Outage (2012): A software update error in RBS’s payment processing system led to: regulatory penalties of £42 million and customer trust erosion
• CrowdStrike Update Outage (2024) caused a global IT outage due to a faulty update. Approximately 8.5 million Windows systems crashed worldwide, resulting in an estimated $10 billion in damages

These aren’t edge cases. These are failures from some of the most resourced and regulated companies in the world. And governmental organizations are no exception:

UK Post Office Horizon Scandal – Between 1999 and 2015, the UK Post Office’s Horizon IT system, developed by Fujitsu, falsely indicated financial discrepancies, leading to the wrongful prosecution of over 700 sub-postmasters. Consequences included:

• Human impact: Many individuals faced imprisonment, financial ruin, and reputational damage.
• Financial repercussions: The UK government allocated £1.8 billion for compensation.
• Reputational damage: The scandal led to a significant loss of public trust and necessitated a comprehensive overhaul of the Post Office’s operations.

Queensland Health Payroll System Failure – In 2010, Queensland Health in Australia implemented a new payroll system that was inadequately tested. The result:

• Human impact: Approximately 78,000 staff received incorrect payments, with some not paid at all.
• Financial repercussions: The project incurred costs exceeding AUD 1.2 billion over eight years.
• Reputational damage: The incident is considered one of the most significant failures in public administration in Australia.

2. What are the common themes?

• Inadequate testing: A recurring issue in these cases is the lack of comprehensive testing, particularly in complex systems.
• Overreliance on technology: Dependence on software without sufficient oversight can lead to catastrophic failures.
• Overreliance on developers: Peer reviews are helpful, but not a substitute for independent QA.
• Delayed response: Failure to promptly address and rectify issues exacerbates the consequences. Small bugs become big PR disasters without rapid mitigation.
• Technical debt: Accumulated shortcuts and lack of documentation hinder scalability and maintainability.
• Poor User Experience (UX): Neglecting UX testing results in interfaces that frustrate users, leading to churn.

Bugs don’t just annoy users – they damage reputation, kill growth momentum, have a hefty price tag. Beyond financial losses, these failures result in significant human suffering and loss of trust.

3. Ask yourself:

• Are your users the first to discover production bugs?
• How many hotfixes did your last “release” actually need?
• Are you relying too heavily on developer testing and peer reviews without independent validation?
• Is your QA process scaling with your roadmap, or slowing it?

If any of those questions make you uncomfortable, you’re not alone. But you’re also not safe.

4. What can CTOs and CIOs do to prevent QA issues:

• Treat QA as a profit center, not a cost center – quality increases retention, reduces rework, and protects growth velocity.
• Design QA processes to support release velocity – agile QA supports rapid releases without compromising stability.
• Obsess over post-release impact, not just pre-release sign-off – the job isn’t done at deployment, it’s done when your users stay happy.
• Use Independent QA Teams – separate QA teams provide unbiased testing, catching issues developers might overlook.
• Embed User-Centric Testing – engage real users in testing to gather feedback on usability and functionality.
• Leverage both manual and automated testing – structured manual scenarios + automation pipelines = real coverage.

5. Final thought

What’s the cost of the next bug your users find before you do?

Because that next bug might not just cost you a feature, it might cost you your business.