| || |
Why QC(Testing) if we already do QA?
Why should we do QC(Testing) if we already do QA?
Why should we do validation if we already do verification?
Re: Why QC(Testing) if we already do QA?
QC at completion is still important for several reasons
1. Verfication does not mean you have built the right thing.
You may have done a good job a building the wrong thing. Verfication does not ensure that requirements are right. (Nether does validation BTW)
2. QA especially ISO 9000 series umbrella standards are flawed when it comes to applying them to software.
To explain point 2 further, early in my career an older experienced software engineer explained that software development is a black art. He described it as a cottage type industry. Apply QA principles, which come from the manufacturing industry, to software is misguided. There have been some improvements since then, but very little has been achieved in the 10 years since then.
In a manufacturing environment you generally have high volume, low customisation. In the software industry you generally have low volume, high customisation.
Alot of software engineering firms have such quality systems and have yet to evolve them to a point where they address the issues of developing software. This is particularly true of companies that do both software and hardware development.
I worked on a large scale project where the hardware delivery was considered to be the main problem and the software you just install at the end and it would all work. The results where of course quite the opposite.
Doing away with QC is defintely too risky as it assumes that the QA process is flawless. I have extenisve experince as a Lead Assessor for ISO Standards and I can testify that most companies don't address Software adequately enough in their QA procedures/Processes.