I concur with Cern's point of view.
Following up on Malcolm's original distinction, I think it is common to find groups that describe themselves as QA (in the "we're not testing; we're QA) sense of the word in regulated industries. I've seen them most often in defense industry companies and health companies (medical devices; medical software, etc.). I think they are generally widespread among government contracting companies. Some of those companies are probably compelled to have such groups. I've generally thought of STAR, QAI, SEPG (and associated SPINs) and ASQ as conferences where I would meet many people who were employed in such groups, or they wanted to be and thought those groups were higher prestige, or who consulted to such groups. I think they also exist in some very large non-software companies that don't fit the DoD or Health mold, but I don't see enough of a pattern to generalize.
In terms of value to society, I think some of these groups exist only to provide material for Dilbert's cartoons.
But others are perceived as adding more value. For example, people who distinguish what they do as being "QA" are often involved in software engineering measurement or in process improvement activities.
I think that many metrics programs do more harm than good, but not all of them. I think there is such a thing as a metrics expert who can add value to a company and that it takes significant expense to gather all the data such a person would need in order to do that function well. I have heard persuasive reports of companies in which such people added value. The team that gathers data in this function is probably called "QA."
Similarly, "process improvement" has been a successful, data-driven activity in many industries. It has also been the subject of worthless or destructive fads. Think of "six sigma" and "lean" – in some hands these are remarkably successful and in others, they are just more fodder for Dilbert. I have seen persuasive evidence that there exist groups who do a good job of data collection and analysis needed to for fact-based identification of potential areas for improvement and assessment of whether changes actually resulted in improvement (in positive results that outweighed the unintended side effects of the changes). As with metrics groups, these process improvement teams need people, budget, and focus or they won't be able to do their job. Software testing is not their job.
My overall experience with people who call themselves "QA" (in the non-tester sense of the word) and the consultants who sell training and advice to them has been negative, but it is too easy to incorrectly and unfairly stereotype these people (no one worth knowing or working with, no real successes, consultants who are stupid, closed minded or charlatans). They are more diverse than that.
-- Cem Kaner
0 comments:
Post a Comment