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
From: agile-testing@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-testing@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm Anderson
Sent: 1/4/12 2:42 PM
To: agile-testing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [agile-testing] What is the difference between QA and Test?
Dorothy
I agree with you, the QA / SDET split you are describing is useful. I'm dealing with a different distinction.
I'm specifically looking for examples of "QA Professionals" who cannot or will not test, and to determine their natural habitat.
If it wasn't for the fact that we had two non-testing QA Professionals in our organization I would have just chalked up this one individual as incompetent and forgotten about the situation.
My expectation is that this species is only to be found in fortune 1000 companies with long established waterfall traditions.
--
Malcolm Anderson
Scrum Coach & Agile Engineer
http://www.PragmaticAgility.com/blog
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Dorothy MURRAY <dotti_murray@msn.com> wrote:
A different take is QA and SDET.
I have QA that completes manual testing and they only look at UX, workflow, etc (user experience look and feel). THe SDETs are writing automated testing and executing. My QA resources are not technical.
Regards,
Dorothy Murray, CSP
www.linkedin.com/in/dorothymurray
To: agile-testing@yahoogroups.com
From: malcolm.b.anderson@pragmaticagility.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:50:14 -0800
Subject: [agile-testing] What is the difference between QA and Test?
Lisa's thread about the value of testers on an agile team made me think about an experience I had with someone who came to us as "Quality Assurance."
Prior to this experience QA was (in my mind) the group that put thought to testing, and how to test.
What I learned over a very painful year was that this individual believed that QA was there to write documentation about something called "quality."
When we asked this person to do testing they would say (rather indignantly) "I am not a Tester, I do QA."
Clearly this person believed that being a "Tester" was a step down.
That was my first and only experience with this QA - Tester dichotomy. I have to assume that QA is a useful function in a waterfall organization.
Can anyone else shed some light on this QA - Tester split?
Thanks
--
Malcolm Anderson
Scrum Coach & Agile Engineer
http://www.PragmaticAgility.com/blog
0 comments:
Post a Comment