Should QA Exist
4 hours ago
- #Quality Assurance
- #Automated Testing
- #Engineering Leadership
- Engineering leaders debate whether QA should exist, with some arguing against it due to slowing down processes and creating moral hazards.
- Proponents of QA highlight the specialized skill of testing, the value of automated tests, and the necessity in high-stakes situations.
- The testing pyramid suggests a hierarchy of tests: unit tests at the base, followed by integration and UI tests, with engineers typically responsible for the first two.
- A nuanced approach suggests embedding QA within teams, focusing on automation, and having engineering own quality while QA acts as experts.
- QA can be high leverage in specific scenarios like brittle architectures or as strategic roaming assets for sensitive projects.
- For existing QA teams, recommendations include shifting left, focusing on automation, and integrating QA into developer workflows.
- The concept of an Automated Verification Engineer (AVE) is introduced as a modern, high-leverage role combining developer experience and quality assurance.
- AVE focuses on fast, automated feedback for engineering teams, with metrics centered around time to feedback and test effectiveness.
- Experimentation and adaptation are encouraged for QA leaders to evolve their roles in the context of AI and automated verification.
- Respect for QA professionals is emphasized, alongside the need for role evolution to avoid transactional processes and enhance continuous integration.