Early In, All In

We’re building a digital product. It’s software. Getting developers and testing practices involved early seems like an obvious best practice. These methods allow teams to iterate quickly, catch errors early, and maintain flexibility by identifying and addressing issues long before they become major problems.

But we’ve all seen the chaos and panic that erupts when teams scramble to fix problems as the deadline looms—budgets get blown, quality takes a nosedive, and everyone feels like they’re barely holding on.

Why? Because, too often, we wait. Developers sit on the sidelines until the requirements are “finalized.” Testing? That’s something we’ll worry about once the code is written, assuming there’s time.

This habit doesn’t just shift risk to the end—it multiplies it, cranks up the cost of failure, and drives teams to the brink. While most agree that early involvement is the answer, making it happen is an entirely different challenge.

For many teams, bringing in developers and testing methods early feels like pushing a boulder uphill. There’s a deeply ingrained mindset: developers code, tests get run, and they do it when the calendar says it’s time. Early feedback? That’s disruptive. Shifting this mindset requires more than procedural tweaks; it demands a fundamental rebuilding of the frameworks that define how work gets done.

The reluctance to change is often rooted in "status quo bias," the tendency to stick with familiar processes, even when they’re failing. The old rhythm—plan, code, test—feels predictable, safe. It’s been reinforced by years of rigid timelines, where stepping outside that comfort zone feels like unnecessary risk. Early feedback is seen not as a chance to catch issues but as a disruption or, worse, as a slippery slope toward scope creep. Teams cling to the familiar, even when it leads to late surprises and blown deadlines, because it’s easier to justify. Breaking this cycle isn’t just about changing processes—it’s about changing mindsets and redefining roles.

Adding to the inertia is "confirmation bias," where teams look for evidence that justifies keeping developers and testing in their traditional lanes. If early involvement once led to heated debates or delays, those moments are remembered and exaggerated, reinforcing the idea that it’s safer to keep roles distinct and sequential. This bias is fed by the constant feeling of time scarcity. When the pressure is on, getting early, additional input feels like a luxury—one teams often feel they can’t afford. The irony is that this perceived “time saved” upfront only leads to greater costs down the line.

The eternal pressure to deliver quickly, combined with rigid roles, pushes teams into a cycle where we avoid early collaboration. Feedback is seen as a threat to timelines, not an opportunity to prevent issues. In the rush to hit deadlines, the bigger picture is missed: early involvement, while seemingly slow at first, buys time where it matters most. It reduces rework, clarifies requirements, and addresses problems before they escalate into expensive, death-march nightmares.

So how do we change this? It starts with creating an environment where collaboration is not just possible but expected. This shift can’t be forced from the top down with directives; it requires a culture built on trust and transparency. It means breaking away from the rigid handoffs where information is doled out in pieces and moving toward a model where everyone has a seat at the table from day one. It’s messy, it’s iterative, but it’s how real work gets done.

The challenge isn’t just getting developers involved earlier; it’s about ensuring their input has real impact. Too often, early involvement means developers sit in meetings where decisions are already made, with little opportunity for meaningful debate. This leads to disengagement when developers feel their feedback doesn’t matter. To break this cycle, we need to create an environment where collaboration is genuine, where technical concerns are discussed and addressed before they escalate into bigger issues.

Early involvement often feels like an extra burden because teams are already juggling limited resources. Developers focus on immediate tasks, and testing gets delayed to the point where it’s too late to make significant changes. To avoid this, teams need to operate differently. This involves forming smaller, empowered groups that can make decisions and adapt resources across all stages of the product lifecycle, ensuring both development and testing happen early and consistently.

Product leaders play a critical role in this shift. It’s not enough to suggest developers get involved earlier; we must actively participate in discussions, encourage open communication between product and development, and demonstrate that every team member’s input is valuable. We need to actively seek and respond to feedback, involve developers in technical and non-technical decision-making processes, and openly acknowledge their contributions. We need to create spaces where team members feel comfortable challenging ideas and suggesting alternatives, ensuring that feedback is a continuous and integral part of the workflow. We need to foster a culture where experimentation is encouraged, and mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn, rather than failures to punish.

We need to buy risk where it’s cheapest and can do the most good—early. The slow, deliberate work upfront of tough conversations, iterative problem-solving, early testing—pays dividends when the stakes get higher. We don’t just build a better product—we build a better process, one where teams collaborate deeply, spot risks before they get expensive, and approach deadlines without the panic.