Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Is a QA Engineer necessary on a small team?

Expand Messages
  • David A Barrett
    I agree with Hubert s, What do your people think? response. I disagree to varying degrees with the other answers. Our experience is with a smaller team (4.5
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 2 9:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with Hubert's, "What do your people think?" response. I disagree
      to varying degrees with the other answers.

      Our experience is with a smaller team (4.5 people) including a Business
      Analyst with a strong QA background.

      First off, the team as a whole is responsible for QA. It is important that
      no one forget that. That being said, though, I see no reason to homogenize
      the team into generalists. Having a QA specialist is useful because they
      have particular skills in that area, and can assist the other team members
      to try new techniques like Test Driven Development that they might not used
      before.

      I will also add that a non-programming QA person brings a unique
      perspective to table, and is never tempted to take something on faith
      because the code is, "too simple to go wrong".

      Going outside of the original parameters of the question, I find that
      combining QA and BA roles into one person on a small team is very
      effective. Your mileage may vary, however, and it probably is dependant on
      the personalities of the team members. This goes back to Hubert's answer.
      Put it to the team and let them decide how to make it work. At the end of
      the day, the "How" of the development is the sole domain of the team
      members.


      Dave Barrett,
      Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
    • David H.
      ... I know :) But that is exactly my point. When all of the people refuse to work together, customer, business unit, analysis, the quality of the product will
      Message 42 of 42 , Feb 7 2:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Steven Gordon wrote:
        > On 2/7/06, David H. <dmalloc@...> wrote:
        >> I do agree that people need to realise that most quality issues originate
        >> much
        >> higher up. Most of the time when the requirements are gathered.
        >
        >
        > David,
        >
        > In Scrum, when are the requirements "gathered"? Who participates? It's not
        > like a waterfall process where we can go blame some analyst.
        >
        I know :)
        But that is exactly my point. When all of the people refuse to work together,
        customer, business unit, analysis, the quality of the product will suffer.
        Often enough some software department has to deal with developing software for
        a domain they know nothing about. Yet there is no insider they are allowed to
        talk to. Now what will that do to Quality ?

        > It would be a process smell if the team depended on the QA person to ask the
        > difficult questions while all the developers just sat there daydreaming
        > about how they were going to code it.
        >
        Actually I was more thinking that the QA person is there to kick off the
        important act of questioning yourself. I do look at this from a more
        philosophical point of view than a technical one. Everyone can be the QA
        person in a team and I hope that all of us have a QA person in us. I know that
        I do QA aspects whenever I am Scrum Master for a project. However it helps
        when someone steps up and states. "Yepp I will have an eye on it, maybe more
        so than others"

        > If the developers cannot ask the right questions, the solution is not to
        > depend on somebody else to ask them, but to integrate somebody into the
        > team who can show them how.

        Yes, see above, I do believe we agree here.

        > Integrating that person into the team would
        > mean they do not do all the QA work and they do not just do QA work. If you
        > do not integrate that person, then the cross-training will be much less
        > effective.
        >
        Once more, yes, yes, yes :)

        -d
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.