A quality system, comes with bugs
Posted by testcrunch on 23rd March 2007
I worked on a Y2K project once where it was full of QA consultants.
I’m not even sure what a QA person is anyway, it certainly isn’t anything to do with what I do which is to test software till it works. With these QA people, I wasn’t even convinced they had that much experience, as they appeared to have better knowledge in other areas of business rather than IT. But then what do you expect. It was Y2K time and all companies were panicking a bit and taking on anybody to test software and paying way over the odds.
These QA guys did push out a hell of a lot of documentation regarding the generation of quality systems, and I mean a lot. But they were a bit reticent about actually testing any software i.e. they didn’t actually want to get their hands dirty.
Now the cynic in me might say that they didn’t want to actually test software probably because they’d never actually done it before and maybe never actually worked in IT before and therefore didn’t know how to do stuff. Which did make me think that most of them probably had just read a very dry QA manual, rejigged their CV a bit and voila, instant expert QA consultant. Of course me in the middle of all of these non-practical experts was interesting. I did enjoy some of the conversations though.
One in particular, where somebody tried to convince me that he could prove, via documentation alone, that a system was a quality system. I progressed the argument a bit and eventually the expert admitted that you could have a quality system with quite a lot of significant bugs still in it.
Eh. A quality system riddled with defects. What does their version of the word ‘quality’ mean? Whatever was their interpretation, it doesn’t seem of much use.
Seems that the word ‘quality’ had been hi-jacked and was something that I never wanted to be involved with.
Posted in Testing software - watching bits drop off, Y2K, it's all been a dreadfull mistake | No Comments »






