Re: Is a QA Engineer necessary on a small team?
- 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
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
Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
- Steven Gordon wrote:
> On 2/7/06, David H. <dmalloc@...> wrote:I know :)
>> I do agree that people need to realise that most quality issues originate
>> higher up. Most of the time when the requirements are gathered.
> In Scrum, when are the requirements "gathered"? Who participates? It's not
> like a waterfall process where we can go blame some analyst.
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 theActually I was more thinking that the QA person is there to kick off the
> difficult questions while all the developers just sat there daydreaming
> about how they were going to code it.
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 toYes, see above, I do believe we agree here.
> depend on somebody else to ask them, but to integrate somebody into the
> team who can show them how.
> Integrating that person into the team wouldOnce more, yes, yes, yes :)
> 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