We don't need a Quality Department

Is it worth investing in QA staff? This is a question which many companies think about a lot. I have seen process improvement budgets scrapped, staff sacked, staff harassed by asking answer to questions which they are not responsible for..

Do we really need QA staff in our company? Well the answer is both, Yes and No.

Yes, because if there is no one responsible for implementation of these activities, then they always take a back seat. When the project team struggles with project issues, changing requirements, challenging schedule, they are don't have a will strong enough to follow all processes in tough times. They never get appreciation for following processes if the project's financial objectives are not met.

But why doesn't it help even when we do have a QA department? Actually people in QA department think process is the goal, whereas it is only means to achieve the project objectives which are the real goals. So there is conflict of interest of these parties. There will be success and harmony only when there is synergy. Project goals must be clear to all stakeholders and how those will be achieved must be defined together.

I think the current practice of worshipping certain model and having a standard process for all projects is also the culprit for our problems. This makes us to enforce the implementation of these processes in all projects even if they don't make sense. Lack of right people in QA function makes the situation worst. There are guys who don't understand the project needs at all but they try to beat the shit out of the Project manager by raising hell lot of Non Complainces and escalating the project as red. Most of the times there is no connection between QA project status report and the real project status. QA only beats the process stick, while the project is dealing with engineering issue. There are projects which show 100% complaince to processes but they still fail due to lots of defects. Why? The project did all what process asked it to do. All documented, signed checked-in. But the guy who wrote the program didn't understand his module or maybe he simply didn't care and he screwed the module he is working on. So now we have all documents, plans, design, program specs, but still the software is shit.

We can't have a quality output until unless the guy who is actually developing the product does it right. We can't just focus on documenting the plans, reports, drawings and expect all to go well. Every single aspect of a project must be individually taken care of and integrated in the big picture to get what we want.

Implementing a process model is very easy. Coz' it all is verified in paperwork. But what goes on in the real product/service is most of the times not touched at all. Its not like that processes are useless. No, they are very important and essential part of quality assurance. They definitely can get a quality product or service but that is an ideal scenario. It works when all stakeholders know what exactly the process means and expects them to do. How is that relevant for the project? How are all activities connected? How should the interim process output be interpreted and used for betterment of project?

Same applied to data collection part. What we should do is that we should identify the information which we need for future reference (for learning and decision making). When we are sure that this is the necessary and sufficient information need, then we should define ways of recording such information. Companies collect so much data which they never use and hence waste lot of effort in doing so.

No, a QA department is not required. Why?

Because it shifts the responsibility of quality of services/products from the practitioners to this department. It should not happen, but it is a bitter truth. A Purchasing department is reposnible for purchasing activities, Testing for testing, Business Development for getting projects and orders and so on; then why Quality Department is not responsible for quality? Very genuine question indeed!!! And it really works at back of everyone's mind. Maybe if we change its name to Process Assurance Department, then it will be better. Because what it does is, in fact, only process assurance which in turn is expected to do Quality Assurance.

I read somewhere in an article- "Quality can only be engineered, it can't be managed". What a thought! Quite right! Isn't it?

Let the developer be responsible for quality of his product and then only there will be quality. But then the excuse is of not having enough time to really develop a quality product. It is the most common reason cited for not following processes, not having adequate quality and all the problems. But then I think that is the challenge! Of course there will not be enough time. Why can't we be innovative? Where there is a will there is a way. Have we ever compromised on quality of things which we acquire for our personal use? Do we compromise if we make something for us? No. Thats the difference. because here they don't have anything personal on stake. I don't loose my salary, I am not sued for producing bad quality..so why should I care!

I conclude it like this- The QA departments are in fact PA departments and they should be called so. The responsibility for quality lies with the person who is producing the object. If we really have a will to produce a quality output, then we surely will do it. Of course there are exceptional cases where the constraints really don't leave any chance to have desired outputs, but those are rare.