Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Woodman

Yes, I agree with much of what you say. I don’t see why that would be a problem with the suggestions I’ve made. In fact, I’ve pointed to the fact that keeping up with modern technology, modern project process has become more agile. This means that project participants should be involved in the flow of work - must less like the olden days when project emphasis would shift from one group to another in large phases.

The one thing about your comments that leaves me a little cold, is the way you want QA people to monopolize testing. If engineers do no testing, then they’ll end up shipping a lot of stuff that doesn’t work to QA. No point in that. And software systems need to end up doing what they’re intended to do - and for many best efforts that involves experts and specialists in the application area (and often end use customers).

Each has a particular role within the quality assurance process.

I want a gold star for this comment: Quality is everyone’s concern!


96 posted on 09/22/2010 4:59:25 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: Woodman

Thanks for pinging me. You might not have seen my response to the same post @ #96


104 posted on 09/22/2010 9:24:17 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay
I was never trying imply that engineers and business specialists are not needed and I agree with about their value. The problems arise when a project has a QC or testing only approach. I am a strong advocate of TQA, quality assurance is not just testing, it is also enforcement of procedures and unfortunately a great deal of project management.
106 posted on 09/22/2010 2:00:10 PM PDT by Woodman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson