Digital products are increasingly becoming critical infrastructure—from medical systems to services handling sensitive data and security. In this context, the role of an engineer is no longer purely technical; it is steadily shifting toward responsibility, systems thinking, and the ability to make decisions with long-term consequences.
Illia Kovalov is a QA Engineer and QA Lead with more than nine years of experience, whose career spans from testing complex medical solutions to team leadership, international contracts, and building his own projects for the U.S. market.
Over the years, Illia has been involved in the development and quality assurance of multiplatform, medical, and mobile products, collaborated with major U.S. companies, achieved Top Rated Plus status on Upwork, and built his own educational ecosystem for specialists entering the international market. In this interview, he reflects on the boundaries of responsibility, the maturity of engineering decisions, and why quality today is no longer a function, but a strategy.
You have worked on many high-risk projects: healthcare, security, infrastructure services. Where do you personally draw the line of an individual specialist’s responsibility?
— I always distinguish between formal responsibility and personal responsibility. Formally, everyone has a defined scope of tasks described in a contract or role. But in reality, especially in critical projects, that division stops working very quickly. If you see a risk but it is formally “not your problem” and you walk past it, that is already a professional failure—even if you are legally in the clear.
In medical and infrastructure projects, I have always considered it my duty to escalate issues beyond my formal level if I saw a potential threat. This is not about control or interference; it is about maturity of thinking. A system does not care who exactly made a mistake—it simply fails. For me, the boundary of responsibility is not defined by a job description, but by the level of understanding of consequences. If you understand what a decision may lead to, you are already responsible for it.
You have worked as an engineer, a leader, and an entrepreneur. At what point did you realize that technical expertise alone was no longer enough?
— It didn’t happen at a single moment; it was a gradual process. First, you grow as a specialist, solve complex problems, and become the person others turn to for advice. Then you start noticing that many problems arise not because of technology, but because of decisions: wrong priorities, vague requirements, lack of strategy.
At some point, I realized that I could test a product perfectly, but if it was poorly conceived from the start or managed chaotically, the outcome would still be weak. That’s when I understood the need to grasp business logic, product models, and the economics of decisions. It was a shift from thinking “I am responsible for quality” to thinking “I influence the outcome.” That is why the product manager role in IT became close to me—it combines technical depth with strategic vision.
How does decision-making change when you work with U.S. companies over the long term rather than on one-off contracts?
— When you work long-term, decisions become more deliberate. You stop looking for quick compromises and start thinking about how a decision will look in six months or a year. American companies are very sensitive to this.
What matters to them is not just getting a task done, but understanding that the specialist treats the product as a living organism. That’s why the ability to justify your position, propose alternatives, and stand your ground when you see a risk is so highly valued. This builds trust. And that’s how long-term contracts are formed—not through a perfect résumé or formal experience alone.
Your work often involves systems where an error can be invisible yet critical. How do you personally relate to mistakes in your practice?
— I believe mistakes are inevitable. The real question is not whether they will happen, but how the system responds to them. The most dangerous mistake is the one no one notices.
In my practice, there have been situations where an issue did not surface immediately, but only over time and under specific conditions. That is why I always try to design processes in which mistakes are easier to detect than to hide. This is a matter of culture. If a team punishes people for mistakes, they start staying silent. If mistakes are analyzed, the system becomes stronger.
For me, it is important not to look for someone to blame, but to understand why the system allowed the failure to happen. This principle is something I have carried into both team management and entrepreneurship.
You work a lot with people who are just entering the international market. What illusion most often prevents them from growing?
— The most common illusion is that success is determined exclusively by technical skills. People think, “If I become technically stronger, everything will work out,” but the market moved beyond that long ago.
At the international level, the decisive factors are the ability to take responsibility, communicate, negotiate, and understand context. You can be an excellent engineer, but if you cannot explain your value to a client, you will lose to someone who is technically weaker but more mature professionally. I always tell my students and colleagues: technical fundamentals are the entry ticket. Everything else is work on mindset.
What is your personal indicator of a job well done today, if we put numbers and metrics aside?
— For me, it is the moment when the system works without my constant involvement. When I see that processes are structured in a way that does not require manual control every minute.
If the team makes decisions independently, the product develops predictably, and clients feel stability, then the job is done right. In this sense, a good result is always somewhat invisible. It does not require heroics or firefighting. It simply works.
Which skill, in your opinion, will become key for specialists in the coming years?
— Systems thinking. The ability to see connections between technology, people, business, and the consequences of decisions. Tools will change, technologies will accelerate, artificial intelligence will become part of everyday work. But the ability to understand how one decision affects the entire system will remain a rare and valuable skill. It is what distinguishes a specialist from an expert, and an expert from a leader.