3 ms·
I have seen a case of Software QA taking a very different shape, so I'd like to argue that the outcome you describe is not intrinsic to software QA, but rather
by moring 3y ago
I have seen a case of Software QA taking a very different shape, so I'd like to argue that the outcome you describe is not intrinsic to software QA, but rather to company culture.
The case I'm talking about does not have a separate QA department, but QA people as part of every software team. If a product fails, that team is responsible, so software devs are in the same boat as QA. They focus on learning from these failures, so no scapegoat is needed. Process does get followed, but not as a defense mechanism, but because not doing so introduces noise that is an obstacle to improvement. In case of bad outcomes, people do point out that they followed process because then it is clear that the process is involved in the failure and should be improved.
Unfortunately, companies with that kind of culture are rare.
- vegetablepotpie 3y agoI can see integrated QA working for teams because QA personnel would understand project specific constraints and degrees of freedom and tailor solutions in a way that top-down QA cannot. However, there are situations where less QA may be needed, for periods of time, such as when PRs may be low. QA may be seen as overhead by management, and something to reduce. This will lead to QA shared between teams and a push for standardization and top-down process deployment to minimize complexity for these personnel will develop. Complexity to manage the QA personnel will be shifted to development teams. This situation absolutely is controlled by company culture. A culture that neither values QA nor development will do this. A company under financial strain will do that. Companies wax and wane constantly.