Hidden assumptions of Agile Quality

As a Test Manager responsible for global quality and Total Quality Management, I often find myself navigating a landscape much like Marco Polo’s cities in Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities.

Some are thriving hubs of experimentation, others are rigid bureaucracies drowning in process debt. Some flourish with adaptability, while others crumble under the weight of legacy frameworks. Yet, one unspoken assumption prevails: that resilience and quality naturally emerge from Agile processes. But what if they don’t? What if these cities—our teams, workflows, and cultures—have hidden flaws, assumptions, and blind spots that undermine true quality and resilience?

In the agile and testing world, certain beliefs shape how we approach resilience and quality. But are they truths, or just unchallenged groupthink?

We assume that agility fosters resilience, but in reality, many teams collapse under pressure, burnout, or resistance to change. Resilience is not a byproduct of agility—it is an active discipline. What if we treated resilience like testing? Instead of assuming it exists, we validate it through psychological safety metrics, retrospectives that address emotional challenges, and fostering adaptability beyond just process compliance.

Traditional testing focuses on frameworks, coverage, and defect prevention, ignoring the cognitive and emotional biases that shape decision-making. Emotional intelligence—how testers feel about risk, collaboration, and failure—is as important as technical quality. Quality is not just a technical process; it's an ecosystem built on trust, intuition, and psychological safety. How do we test for team resilience the same way we test for system resilience?

The Test Manager has long been seen as an enforcer—someone who ensures compliance rather than discovers new possibilities. But quality is not a wall—it’s a landscape. The best Test Managers are urban explorers, uncovering hidden risks, invisible dependencies, and unknown weak signals. Instead of being the final checkpoint, we act as navigators, helping teams move between different city-states of agility—from rigid structures to thriving, adaptive ecosystems.

TQM is often equated with heavy documentation, rigid compliance, and process-driven thinking that kills innovation. But what if quality wasn’t about control, but about adaptability? Quality should function like a living, adaptive city—where resilience comes from relationships, collaboration, and self-sustaining systems rather than rigid control mechanisms.

If every Agile team and testing culture were a city in Invisible Cities, which one would you live in? The goal is not to destroy these cities but to navigate them wisely, knowing when to leave behind outdated structures and when to build something new.

As a Test Manager, I am no longer just a gatekeeper. I am an explorer—mapping risks, uncovering hidden truths, and guiding teams through resilience challenges. Agile testing is not just about defect prevention; it is about navigating the shifting landscapes of quality and emotional intelligence.