Do We Still Need Release Managers? A Bold Case for the QA Manager’s Expanded Role

In today’s agile, high-speed development cycles, roles are evolving — and sometimes overlapping. But what if they didn’t just overlap? What if one of them could disappear entirely?

At Striped Giraffe, based on years of hands-on project experience across multiple industries, we’ve seen growing evidence that a competent, empowered QA Manager can fulfill — and sometimes outperform — the traditional role of a Release Manager. This observation raises a thorny question: Is the Release Manager still a necessary role in modern software delivery?

To explore this question, we sat down with two of our experts: Aleksandra Neukirch, QA Lead, and Magdalena Osmańska, Senior Software Tester. Here’s what we’ve learned from that conversation — and why we believe this is a debate worth having.

An expert view by

When QA manages the release – and makes everything much easier

At first glance, the merging of QA and Release Manager responsibilities might sound radical. But in practice, especially in agile or CI/CD-driven environments, it often happens naturally — and works surprisingly well.

“It’s not just about speeding things up,” says Aleksandra Neukirch. “When QA leads the release, you eliminate friction. The person who understands the risk is also the one deciding when to go live.”

Among the key advantages:

• Faster Release Cycles: QA can make informed go/no-go calls immediately, without waiting for external validation.
• Cost Efficiency: One person instead of two — particularly valuable for startups or lean teams.
• Stronger Focus on Automation: The merged role tends to drive better adoption of CI/CD pipelines and post-deploy smoke tests.
• Improved Process Feedback Loops: Bugs or blockers encountered during testing feed directly into release planning and vice versa.

“QA has the full picture,” notes Magdalena Osmańska. “We see the trends, the flaky tests, the areas of recurring failure — and we’re in the best position to use that insight to make a safe release decision.”

But wait — isn’t this a conflict of interest?

Of course, not everyone agrees. One of the most common criticisms of this model is the inherent conflict of interest.

QA’s role is to protect quality. The Release Manager’s job is to ship. When both responsibilities fall to one person, can we really expect objective decisions?

“The risk is real,” admits Aleksandra. “But it’s manageable — if you rely on measurable, automated release criteria.”

She recommends practices like:

• Requiring 95%+ pass rates on regression tests
• Blocking releases with any critical bugs
• Enforcing code coverage thresholds or performance benchmarks

Rather than rely on gut feel or deadline pressure, this approach builds objectivity into the process itself.

A question of skillsets — or of culture?

Another counterargument is that QA and Release Managers have fundamentally different skill profiles.

Release Managers excel in stakeholder communication, deployment orchestration, and risk management. QA specialists are deep in test strategies, automation frameworks, and UX validation.

So does merging the roles mean compromising both?

“Only if you expect one person to do everything,” says Magdalena. “The trick is to define clear responsibilities — and encourage collaboration. QA doesn’t need to be the DevOps expert, but we can take ownership of the release with support from the team.”

In other words: this isn’t a call for heroic multitasking. It’s a call for leaner, smarter processes, where release readiness is a shared responsibility — and quality is everyone’s concern.

When this model works — and when it doesn’t

Like most ideas in software development, this model isn’t universal. But it’s powerful in the right conditions:

• Complex or frequent releases (SaaS, agile, CI/CD-heavy environments)
• Mature automation and observability pipelines
• Teams with a strong quality culture
• Cross-functional collaboration and trust
• A QA lead with solid technical and communication skills

Where these conditions are met, the results can be transformative.

“It’s about empowering QA,” says Aleksandra. “When you trust us with release decisions, you get faster cycles, fewer bugs in production, and a tighter feedback loop. Why add another layer of management if you don’t have to?”

Final thoughts: Is it time to rethink the Release Manager?

We’re not claiming that Release Managers are obsolete. But in many modern teams, they may be optional rather than essential — especially when QA leaders are equipped with the right tools, authority, and skills.

This is not just a debate about roles. It’s about how we structure our teams to move fast, build quality software, and stay lean.

So what do you think?

• Have you worked in environments where QA led the release process?
• Do you see risks in merging these responsibilities — or untapped potential?

Let’s talk.

You might also like:

• How buzzwords could put your IT at risk » Learn more
• Mastering software delivery: Overcoming development hurdles » Learn more
• How to choose the right IT service provider » Learn more