Spring 2007

Summer 2007

Selection

Votes

Pct of Total

Votes

Pct of Total

Business Analysts

0

0.0

1

1.7

DBAs

0

0.0

0

0.0

Help Desk

0

0.0

0

0.0

Lead Developer

0

0.0

1

1.7

Management/Executive Team

3

5.8

8

13.8

Network Administrators

0

0.0

0

0.0

Program Office

1

1.9

0

0.0

Project Manager

10

19.2

8

13.8

QA (defect prevention, inspections, reviews, etc.)

2

3.8

3

5.2

QC - as Blackbox test team

2

3.8

0

0.0

QC Test Team Lead

0

0.0

1

1.7

System Analysts

0

0.0

0

0.0

System Architects

0

0.0

0

0.0

The head of Development - R and D

2

3.8

3

5.2

The Whole Company

32

61.5

33

56.9

Web Team

0

0.0

0

0.0

Totals:

52

100.0

58

100.0

New Voters between Summer and Spring Polls

10

Number Voters Not Returning for Summer Poll

4

Discussion During Polling

BJ:

IMHO, the choice missing is 'the management team.' I read an article a few years ago which stated if the whole team 'owns' quality then nobody is really responsible.

Cyndi:

I honestly think that it is the organization as a whole. If you ask my boss, he looks at it dependent upon the definition of "QA". If he is talking about QA in the sense of just testing then the responsibility lies with the QA Department; if he is thinking of QA in the sense of defect prevention, getting involved earlier in the process, etc then he feels it is the Development Manager's responsibility.

SQAF’s Most Senior Citizen:

Jake, where is "All Of The Above"? I guess "The Whole Company" will suffice. That's my vote. If defective software goes out to the customers, the whole company's name is besmirched, not just the Ba, or PM, or QC person, but the "COMPANY'S" name.

Jim Hazen:

IMHO and based on experience with some companies I have worked with the ultimate owner is Executive Management. The QA/Test (both real QA & QC/Test) group/function is an investigative unit for the company. Our charter and responsibility is to aid in prevention, discovery and repair of defects/issues with the SUT. The decision to do those activities and to use the information from them is the responsibility of the EM. We give them the information to make informed decisions. Thus the ultimate responsibility and ownership is with them.

Unfortunately I have only seen that in 2 companies I have worked for over the last 20 years. It is the exception to the norm. But when it was done this way life was a lot better for everyone involved and I felt that I was effective in my job. We produced better products and we did not go grossly over schedule when we did push beyond our target dates. Things seemed to be under control. Funny thing is both of those companies got bought out by competitors and then they quickly gutted the process. And yes, I left not much later afterward. So it goes...

Elfreide:

"All of the Above" is missing, which should exclude "the whole company." While low quality products will reflect on the entire company, there are too many people employed generally at a company who do not have any influence or cannot contribute to the quality of a product or program, so we generally can't say the entire company is responsible.

As a suggestion to the earlier comment "if you make everyone responsible for quality, nobody is," it is important that those who are responsible for and can contribute to the quality of a product/program, know their QA related roles and responsibilities (define and document roles and responsibilities).

Prtester:

To have accountability you need to name a person responsible and give that person the power to influence the outcome. For any given project, the project manager should be held accountable.

To say "the Whole Company" is just too vague, too inspirational-poster-ish, it doesn't really empower nor hold responsible anyone in the company, it's a feel good thing that won't change the outcomes.

I do agree that the management team should be held responsible. Especially these days with top executive compensation in the news, I think people are ready for the highly paid upper level to really feel the pinch of bad results along with the rest of the company.

Byron Goodman:

My perceptions:
People are held accountable - they are assigned accountability.
People assume responsibility - they take it upon themselves.

So, the while company should be responsible.
Accountability is determining who to blame if things go wrong. Typically, on a project, it's the PM.

Shane M

Much like Scott in the previous poll, I have a lot of difficulty answering the question without a clear definition of quality in this context. My current feeling is that quality lies close to meeting and exceeding a broad range of customer expections, so I voted for the BAs as the group closest to the customer, but would liked to have ticked a few more boxes as well. What about the trainers, tech support group, etc... Does quality end once the product is shipped?
Perhaps you could include 'the client' in your list. If the client demands quality, can define quality, can recognise quality, is willing to pay for quality, and won't accept anything less than 'quality' than I guess that the client will end up as the owner of quality.
Where the client shops for their solutions, and whether they do business with your company, is a different question

The Kid

You can just as easily make the statement that you are the "owner" for the task of delivering the car back to the rental agency as it was prior to you renting it. like I said....these terms can be mixed and matched.

in your example, you're defining owner as the person who purchased the car or the gun or the "x". Each project of mine has an "owner"...that person didn't buy the software, nor the machines nor pays the salary of the people that are on their project.

the web team and an executive assistant and "x"; surely don't own quality. people would think i'm crazy if I walked up to the head of Tech Support and said "the software for this project isn't meeting quality guidelines..we've had to reject the installer for the past 2 weeks because you can't install the software on Vista.....please tell me what you're going to do about it". No one would do this. You walk up to R and D and ask "what is preventing you from delivering quality software" and in the situation where our assessment of quality is missing key defects that are contributing to lack of software quality I first ask R and D why their unit tests and quality checks missed these defects and then I go to my team and ask why our quality checks missed these defects.

If someone on my team was regularly going to the web team and marketing to ask them, as a contributor to delivering quality software, why the Installer component for an app (as an example) was of such poor quality we've had to reject builds for the last 2 weeks because of it my leadership abilities would be in question and if I allowed this practice to continue I can honestly say I'd be fired.

What would be acceptable would be going to the marketing dept and asking them why a marketing campaign, for example, had no impact on meeting revenue goals.

If we were to ask who owns the task of bringing in revenue to the company....then the appropriate response would be "everyone" because an entire company is responsible for it.....R and D to deliver high quality software to the QC team, QC to perform additional checks to make sure it does meet expectations, PM to properly define expectations in high-quality requirements docs, tech support to deliver appropriate answers to customers....even down to such seemingly trivial tasks as an executive secretary booking plane flights on time for someone who is traveling to a prospective customer.