4 ms·
I would go further and say that most companies would prefer to solve issues via specializing instead of generalizing. For example, if there is a quality problem
by ahoka 3y ago
I would go further and say that most companies would prefer to solve issues via specializing instead of generalizing. For example, if there is a quality problem most products would hire someone with QA experience or create a QA team instead of increasing general QA competence. It's just a more tangible solution, even if not always the best one.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt's much simpler to hire a separate team to cope with a dev team's lack of QA than to convince that dev team that they should test things.
- johnnyanmac 3y agomakes sense from that structure. Dev is already busy with one job, they won't get a raise to also get some QA learning on the side. So there's in fact negative incentive to pick up more responsibility, even if that dev does in fact know QA (unless you own stock in the studio. But that's still a stretch).
- JohnFen 3y agoBut that shouldn't be an either-or thing. You need both a QA team and for the dev team to do appropriate testing.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIt goes both ways, unfortunately - generalizing makes costs disappear, so to beancounters it looks like savings. Like e.g. having each employee responsible for correctly filling in their expenses into some SAP endpoint, under threat of several negative consequences if anything is wrong, should a random audit find out, lets the company reduce the financial side headcount. Less salaries to pay is legible savings. The overall drop of productivity as everyone else has to do extra job is not legible, so it isn't accounted for, and then people talk in surprise about cost diseases and productivity increases not keeping up with pace of advancement, etc.