In episode 119 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Demi Van Malcot and Simon Tomes explore the theme of goals and how sharing them in public can spark motivation, support and community. The episode begins with a busy week in quality updates and a look at the Ministry of Testing goals challenge, where people post goals on ministryoftesting.com, tag them with my-goals and earn badges for goal setter, goal netter and goal getter. The chat joins in as Demi and Simon introduce the idea of goal thievery, encouraging listeners to steal useful goals from others and make them their own.

A highlight of the session is a game of Whose goal is that, where real goals from the collection are read aloud and the live audience guesses the author. This brings up goals about getting back on conference stages, contributing more to This Week in Quality and Lean Coffee, writing for MoT and making better use of profiles and memberships. The group also normalise small goals, weekly goals and what Simon calls goal riffing, removing the pressure to set a perfect year-long plan.

Later, community member Ady Stokes joins to share his ambition to make thinking in testing more visible, intentional and teachable, a long-term effort that may grow into a book supported by articles and workshops. Rosie Sherry, CEO of Ministry of Testing, talks about establishing the MoTaverse as a member driven organisation and offering community as a service, including a new Into the MoTaverse podcast. Demi reflects on her own journey from joining a session to co-hosting and speaking at MoT events, reinforcing the message that you do not need to do goals alone. Sharing helps others support you and lets the community lift you up.

#ThisWeekInQuality

#Goals

#GoalThief

#QualityCommunity

#MoTaverse

In episode 118 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Ben Dowen and Simon Tomes are joined by community members Gary Hawkes, Maithilee Chunduri and Richard Adams for the first live session of 2026. Recorded on Friday 9 January, the episode opens with New Year energy, MoT goals, badges and “fill up your MoT profile” prompts, plus a reminder about the MoT Ambassadors programme and all the ways people can get involved in events this year.

From there, the conversation quickly anchors on a powerful article about AI, testing and getting “back to basics.” The group explore over reliance on AI, shallow understanding and blind spots when tools drive the work instead of human analysis, collaboration and shared understanding. Simon and Ben keep returning to essentials like critical thinking, systems thinking, communication and risk focus, picking up key lines from the article such as “AI is most valuable once humans have already done the thinking” and “AI helps us move faster, but humans still decide where to run and why.”

Across the episode, the panel share real examples of using AI in practice. Ben talks through his Playwright work, using AI powered tooling to add data-test-ids, only to catch a subtle but important mistake later during testing. Richard describes using AI agents with Jira, root cause analysis and Confluence to surface risky areas and guide exploratory testing, highlighting how useful context makes AI genuinely helpful. Gary walks through how his team tried AI coding tools, what happened when the initial push was “faster and cheaper,” and how developers themselves became more cautious and selective over time. Maithilee shares how AI is now a core part of how she learns, stressing the need for clear goals, good prompts and not taking outputs at face value.

Threaded through it all are themes of accountability, risk appetite and the AI quality human loop. The group discuss exploratory testing supported by AI, where tools help with ideas, heuristics and note taking, but humans still own the charters, decisions and debriefs. They return several times to the idea that AI is a tool, not a solution for quality work, and that testers add value when they question, validate and refuse to outsource judgement. By the end of the hour, one message is clear. AI might run fast, but meaningful quality still depends on people who ask good questions, understand context and are willing to stay accountable for the outcomes.

#ThisWeekInQuality

#AIandTesting

#ExploratoryTesting

#HumanInTheLoop

#QualityEngineering

In this special end-of-year recording, This Year in Quality, co-hosts Rosie Sherry and Simon Tomes do something a bit different.

This end-of-year special is live. It’s community-powered. It’s a quiz. The rules are simple. Wrong answers only.

Instead of a polished wrap-up or a neat reflection on the year, Rosie and Simon invite the community to join in and have a bit of fun. Together, they look back on the year through questions, numbers, stats, mascots, stars, badges, meetups, glossary terms, rebrands, and all the small moments that made 2025 what it was.

There are name changes, silly answers, serious pride in what the community has built, and the occasional bug with the platform along the way. Because of course there is.

The episode celebrates what This Year in Quality has become. A space for shared learning, curiosity, experimentation, and showing up as a community. It’s light-hearted, messy, and very on-brand. A reminder that quality is not just about certainty and correctness, but about people thinking together.

A fitting way to wrap up the year and look ahead to what comes next.

#ThisYearInQuality

#SoftwareTesting

#QualityEngineering

#TestingCommunity

#MinistryOfTesting

#TestingPodcast

#QualityCulture

In episode 116 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Ben Dowen and Demi Van Malcot are joined by Ady Stokes and Judy Mosley for a story-driven conversation about trust, systems, and what happens when reality and “what the computer says” don’t line up. Billed as the penultimate episode of the year, the discussion opens with end-of-year reflections before quickly diving into everyday quality problems.

The episode centres on real-world examples where systems get it wrong. Parcels delivered to the wrong house because the scanner says so, cars confidently reporting incorrect speed limits, and checklists that are followed perfectly while the actual problem sits right in front of you. Ady shares a classic server-room story about power cables and blind checklist following, while Demi reflects on teaching computers through explicit instructions and how easily assumptions creep in when context is missing.

As the conversation develops, the group explore trust in data, AI, and automation. Judy raises questions about people relying on confident but incorrect answers, relationships with chatbots, and how easily we accept what tools tell us without validation. Ben repeatedly brings the discussion back to first principles, sense-making, and the risks of outsourcing thinking to systems that cannot see the wider situation.

Across the episode, the theme is clear. Quality breaks down when we stop questioning, stop validating, and defer to tools simply because they sound certain. Quality shows up when people notice mismatches, challenge assumptions, and ask, “does this actually make sense?” even when the system insists it does.

#ThisWeekInQuality

#TrustAndQuality

#DataQuality

#FirstPrinciples

#QualityThinking

In episode 115 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Nataliia Burmei and Simon Tomes are joined by Clare Norman and Gary Hawkes for a conversation full of “fizzy minds” and quality problems. The group start by reflecting on end-of-year pressures, learning goals for 2026 and the launch of the new Thanks button in the MoTverse before turning toward the main topic: quality coaching and how people understand it in their day-to-day work.

The discussion centres on situational quality coaching and the idea that there is no cookie-cutter coaching template. Clare talks about working with teams based on their ability and motivation, and how bridge building across roles helps people care about quality when competing priorities make it hard. Gary shares stories from his organisation, where shrinking teams have made shared ownership essential. He describes whole-team exploratory sessions, giving product managers prompts to think about quality and helping developers “zoom out” instead of getting stuck in the weeds of Jira tickets.

Across the episode, the group return to a simple message: you don’t need “quality coach” in your job title to coach. As soon as you step out of your bubble, ask better questions, help teams see the bigger picture or create space for quality conversations, you are already doing the work. It’s about encouraging learning, care and collaboration so teams can tackle their quality problems together.

#QualityCoaching

#QualityEngineering

#TeamCollaboration

#ContinuousImprovement

#QualityAsCare

In episode 114 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Ben Dowen and Simon Tomes are joined by Dan Caseley and Maithilee Chunduri for a focused and practical conversation about the realities of mobile testing. The group begin by reflecting on recent discussions in the community before shifting into the core theme of the episode: how mobile testing has become both simpler and more complex at the same time.

Dan brings experience from years of mobile work and talks through the shift from physical device cupboards to cloud device farms, the limitations of both, and why testing on “all the things” is neither practical nor necessary. Maithilee adds insight from distributed teams, where reproducing issues across locations, devices and settings becomes a real challenge. Their stories highlight how mobile testing often stretches further than teams expect.

The conversation explores why teams increasingly build and run apps locally, how analytics guide device choices, and why API-level checks remain essential. The group also dig into the constraints of mobile releases, the difficulty of rollbacks, and the need to balance depth, breadth and pragmatism when planning mobile test coverage.

Across the episode, the discussion stays grounded in day-to-day practice. It encourages listeners to rethink their approach to mobile testing, make risk-based decisions, and accept that chasing every device permutation isn’t the path to quality. Instead, thoughtful choices and clear collaboration help teams move faster with confidence.

#MobileTesting

#QualityEngineering

#RiskBasedTesting

#ModernTesting

#DistributedTeams

In episode 112 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Judy Mosley and Ben Dowen welcome Scott Kenyon and Ady Stokes to the stage for an honest and energetic conversation about the meaning of quality engineering in today’s teams. The group explore how the term is used across companies, why definitions vary so widely, and what happens when people bring different expectations to the same role.

The discussion begins with a light detour into biscuits and snacks, which quickly becomes a reflection on how familiar words can mean very different things in different contexts. This leads into the main theme of the episode. The panel talk about the blurred vision of quality engineering, the mix of strategy and execution in the work, and the confusion caused when companies use the title to describe very different jobs.

Scott shares a moment that sparked his own existential crisis about test leadership and identity. Ady adds perspective on the difference between testing the product and influencing the systems that build it. Judy and Ben help surface the real tension many testers and quality engineers face when role titles shift or expectations grow without support.

Throughout the episode the conversation stays grounded in lived experience. The panel explore the rise of tool focused job descriptions, the pressure to fit automation heavy roles, and the growing need for curiosity, resilience, collaboration, and clear communication. They also highlight ongoing work on the new Software Quality Engineering Certificate and invite the community to share audio stories about their day to day work.

It is a warm, thoughtful session that encourages listeners to look beyond titles and focus on purpose, clarity, and the real impact of their work.

In episode 111 of This Week in Quality, co-hosts Ben Dowen and Simon Tomes welcome Christine Pinto and Jesper Ottosen to the stage for a lively conversation about the role of quality feedback in modern software teams. The group explore how testers and quality advocates can influence product direction early, not just through testing artefacts, but through meaningful conversations, shared understanding, and timely insights.

The panel discuss why testing artefacts such as test cases and plans can become outdated, heavy to maintain, and sometimes disconnected from the real value testers bring. Instead of collecting documents for the sake of documentation, they focus on the usefulness of feedback loops, learning through collaboration, and asking the right questions at the right time. Christine and Jesper share stories from their own experience where feedback changed decisions, shaped better outcomes, and reduced waste.

Throughout the episode, Ben and Simon spark discussion with a quick quiz on leadership ideas from recent Leading with Quality conversations. The guests reflect on shifting perceptions of testing, influencing teams without authority, and supporting quality as a shared responsibility. It is an energetic, thoughtful session that encourages listeners to prioritise learning, alignment, and improvement over artefacts that no longer serve a purpose.