4 ms·
Some of QA is technical needlessly; we think that's a common issue with tooling today. QA today is just not accessible to folks that think about and manage chan
by ukd1 5y ago
Some of QA is technical needlessly; we think that's a common issue with tooling today. QA today is just not accessible to folks that think about and manage change to the product, namely product folks.
Why don't you think it should be part of product?
Love that your department is called "Quality", implies more metrics-less-feeling before reading the doc.
- sytse 5y agoThanks Russell. In our experience a lot of QA improvements require automation which is more of a software engineering job than a product management one.
- ukd1 5y agoI think this is mostly true today, but something which we think of as broken and we're fixing. We believe it should be accessible to a wider audience outside of just engineering; there is a lot to do, but we're starting with UI automation.
- Rapzid 5y ago> folks that think about and manage change to the product, namely product folks It's weird to me that the software engineers building the product are not viewed as "product folk". The people designing the architecture for and building the actual product aren't managing the changes to it or concerned about it? The people who have to address any defects in it aren't concerned about their processes as they pertain to quality? This sort of worldview seems anti-agile and anti-lean TBH.
- fredsters_s 5y agoNowhere do we say that the entire product organization - devs, designers, PMs - should not care about quality. It's a question of ownership and focus.
- Rapzid 5y agoEngineering needs to own and focus on quality. It's construction that determines quality. It's construction that addresses defects. It's engineering that owns construction. If engineers aren't owning and focused on quality the business either doesn't really believe there are quality issues or there is a huge alignment issue.