It seems to me that having a separate group responsible for QA can't be the ideal solution. When you have one group responsible for Quality, then what is the other group responsible for? Meeting deadlines? Functionality?
Quality is a matter of both delivering useful value and a matter of avoiding defects. You need a team/person that is responsible for both. The answer is to make the team responsible for quality, not to attach a QA team to a programming team that isn't doing satisfactory work.
Re:Testing - The Anti Quality Process
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
An observation. You say that it is not worth the effort to make HTML that everyone can read. And yet you criticize Microsoft for not making software that everyone can use. Aren't both decisions about quality? And in both cases isn't the issue not a matter of knowing enough about to get quality, but simply not always caring about it when the costs are born by others?
Poor vegetation management probably played an even bigger role as overloaded power lines warmed up, expanded and sagged into trees and bushes that were supposed to have been cut back.
This is a red herring. The alarm system's purpose was to alert the system operators if a transmission line went down. These things happen, and that is why they have an alarm system.
A failure in an alarm system will never lead to a serious problem if the events it is supposed to detect never happen. This does not absolve the the XA/21 developers in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Quality is a matter of both delivering useful value and a matter of avoiding defects. You need a team/person that is responsible for both. The answer is to make the team responsible for quality, not to attach a QA team to a programming team that isn't doing satisfactory work.
An observation. You say that it is not worth the effort to make HTML that everyone can read. And yet you criticize Microsoft for not making software that everyone can use. Aren't both decisions about quality? And in both cases isn't the issue not a matter of knowing enough about to get quality, but simply not always caring about it when the costs are born by others?
Poor vegetation management probably played an even bigger role as overloaded power lines warmed up, expanded and sagged into trees and bushes that were supposed to have been cut back. This is a red herring. The alarm system's purpose was to alert the system operators if a transmission line went down. These things happen, and that is why they have an alarm system. A failure in an alarm system will never lead to a serious problem if the events it is supposed to detect never happen. This does not absolve the the XA/21 developers in any way.