4 ms·

I bit OT, but I saw something similar once where the head of QA reported to the director of development. So the guy in charge of QA's annual raise/bonus/etc was

I bit OT, but I saw something similar once where the head of QA reported to the director of development. So the guy in charge of QA's annual raise/bonus/etc was himself compensated based on hitting release deadlines. I wonder how people here would have set that up differently.

clarkevans 13y ago
One approach is to have Quality Control report to the Product Manager, who reports to Business Development. This might be doubly beneficial since it could help reign in promises that don't align with proven product direction. Also, what many companies call "QA" is really just QC, that is, checking the outputs. Quality Assurance is focused the production process itself, that developers are properly trained and that development/testing processes are competent.
- sumanthvepa 13y ago
  One approach I've seen at Microsoft is to have Product Management, Engineering and QA report to the General Manager. It seemed like a very good solution to empowering QA. I'm guessing that structure evolved because of the need to ensure that Windows worked on a vast variety of plaforms.
karunr 13y ago
I have run a team where the QA manager reported to me. We did not suffer quality issues - because my responsibility & goals were to deliver quality products not just to release dates. So it really depends on business and upper management support in doing the right thing and setting the right goals.
gumby 13y ago
>I bit OT, but I saw something similar once where the head of QA reported to the director of development. This isn't OT at all since most HN readers won't be CEOs of publicly traded companies. Your situation is far more common. A good guide for this is how the FDA manages Good Manufacturing Practice (similar to ISO 9000 except focused on, you know getting shit done instead of getting hung up on the process). One important part is the distribution of responsibility. They get extremely upset by situations like the one you describe specifically because of the possibility of undue influence on the results. Manufacturing, R&D, QA and QC have to be organized to ensure proper independence. (Which also means if you hear about scummy behaviour from a drug company: that flows from the top). -d PS: little known fact: the FDA has armed enforcement personnel who WILL storm through the door in some cases where they believe fraud could be involved in endangering people. I know of cases of this on the pharma side at least -- the food side may be more lax.
- warech 13y ago
  Precisely. Within ISO 9001/13485 certified companies, an individual (usually head of quality/regulatory) is designated the Quality System Management Representative. This individual is explicitly powered by the chief executive with the "responsibility and authority to ensure proper functioning of the quality system" and expected to 'pull the plug' when quality/compliance is at risk.

clarkevans 13y ago

One approach is to have Quality Control report to the Product Manager, who reports to Business Development. This might be doubly beneficial since it could help reign in promises that don't align with proven product direction. Also, what many companies call "QA" is really just QC, that is, checking the outputs. Quality Assurance is focused the production process itself, that developers are properly trained and that development/testing processes are competent.

sumanthvepa 13y ago
One approach I've seen at Microsoft is to have Product Management, Engineering and QA report to the General Manager. It seemed like a very good solution to empowering QA. I'm guessing that structure evolved because of the need to ensure that Windows worked on a vast variety of plaforms.

karunr 13y ago

I have run a team where the QA manager reported to me. We did not suffer quality issues - because my responsibility & goals were to deliver quality products not just to release dates. So it really depends on business and upper management support in doing the right thing and setting the right goals.

gumby 13y ago

>I bit OT, but I saw something similar once where the head of QA reported to the director of development. This isn't OT at all since most HN readers won't be CEOs of publicly traded companies. Your situation is far more common. A good guide for this is how the FDA manages Good Manufacturing Practice (similar to ISO 9000 except focused on, you know getting shit done instead of getting hung up on the process). One important part is the distribution of responsibility. They get extremely upset by situations like the one you describe specifically because of the possibility of undue influence on the results. Manufacturing, R&D, QA and QC have to be organized to ensure proper independence. (Which also means if you hear about scummy behaviour from a drug company: that flows from the top). -d PS: little known fact: the FDA has armed enforcement personnel who WILL storm through the door in some cases where they believe fraud could be involved in endangering people. I know of cases of this on the pharma side at least -- the food side may be more lax.

warech 13y ago
Precisely. Within ISO 9001/13485 certified companies, an individual (usually head of quality/regulatory) is designated the Quality System Management Representative. This individual is explicitly powered by the chief executive with the "responsibility and authority to ensure proper functioning of the quality system" and expected to 'pull the plug' when quality/compliance is at risk.