Column info : Redefining Quality

Comment:
by Bryan Pfaff 3/2/2005

Great article Elisabeth. I agree that the word Quality is often misused which only leads to more confusion on what we need to do to create a quality product. As you stated there are many different definitions of Quality but most seek to define what it 'IS' not 'HOW TO ATTAIN it. I have a sign on my office wall that says "Quality IS the RESULT of ... doing the Right Things - then doing Things Right (the first time and every time)". So when people ask me how do we build Quality software I tell them we have to 'Do the right things' like including reviews, inspections, code walk throughs as part of our development process. So my point is that it is more important to help people understand How to achieve Quality than it is define what it is....Collapse Comments

Comment:
by Marian Dichev 3/2/2005

Hello. I agree that "Quality" is too abstract and it can be used without any knowing of its meaning in particular situation. But from my perspective "Quality" is an entire process and every employee is responsible for quality. It is not only a "Q word" but it is a way of working or even living. Quality can and must be changed. Quality must be measured. Quality improvements must be continuos. These are only basic principles but if they are followed our work in the company will be more productive and more pleasant. Thank you

Comment:
by Gerard Numan 3/2/2005

Hi, the funny thing is that "quality" originally has a neutral meaning and means something like "characteristic". The qualities of a substance like water is that it freezes at) degrees celcius etc. Quality received a more judging function in the 20th century, in industries where differences between intended and real characteristics became an urgent topic. Quality then came to mean something like "the degree to which intended characteristics are real charateristics". Off course, as you point out, it has gradually been downgraded to a buzz-word. Perhaps we should neutralise the word again and think about it in terms of intended characteristics and how to "realize" them....Collapse Comments

Comment:
by Bernard Homes 3/22/2004

Two years ago, Cem Kaner suggested to interpret the acronym QA as Quality Assistance instead of 'Assurance'. This would fit nicely in line with your article as in order to assist in raising a (percieved) quality level, one has to communicate on a more precise level and not use the term 'Quality' in an indeterminate way. This makes quality relative and fits with Gerry Weinberg's definition of 'Quality'.

Comment:
by Balvinder Potdar 3/5/2004

I would like to say something about the below mentioned situation. I agree that people use Quality word wherever they can fit it in as it is a very generic term to tell people if they care or do not care about Product. But I have seen untill unless you use this word the other party do not take you seriously. In the situation Elizabeth mentioned people like Alice does so and then the QA team and in turn Business users has to face the consequences. Becasue we pile up things one by one saying we have workaround and that becomes unmanageble at last when you have 100 workaround for 100 problems. Alice: "I don't think we should fix that bug for this release. It's a risky fix, and it has an easy workaround. Let's fix that for the next release." Bob: "Don't you care about Quality?!?" ...Collapse Comments

Author's Response: 3/8/2004
Hi Balvinder, yes, it's unfortunate that in some organizations you have to brandish "Quality" as a whip to get people's attention. Even then, I've found Quality is often a shorthand way of talking about business concerns. So I still prefer to talk about specifics. Bob could say to Alice, "I am concerned about adding yet another workaround. The users are already complaining about the number of problems and workarounds now. The release notes that document the workarounds are 200 pages. It's getting unmanageable. Ultimately I fear that our customers will find a less quirky solution. What will it take to address these 'little' issues?"

Comment:
by Richard Whitehead 3/5/2004

Supplying what the customer wants is a nice idea. Finding a customer who knows what he wants is a good trick. But I agree with the premise that many times, "quality" and "QA" are bandied around as ways to avoid speaking about specifics.

Author's Response: 3/8/2004
Hi Richard, you raise a good point: customers often don't know what they want. Or, sometimes what they want isn't what they actually need. And I agree that by talking about specifics we're more likely to figure out how to serve them! Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by naman mehta 3/3/2004

I subscribe to the quality definatin as given by Philips Crosby - "Conformance to the Requirements" (as defined by the customer). Thus at any point of time, we need to be aware of the customer's requirement at that point and if we can fulfil those requirements, we are achieving the quality. Here the customer should be viewed in broader sense as stakeholder. Thus the definatin of quality is not changed (as given by Crosby) - what is required is that we need to understand in our perspective. Naman Mehta namanmehta@yahoo.com

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Naman, You're right. I haven't actually called for a change in the definition of the word quality. (For what it's worth, I originally titled this essay "I Don't Want to Talk About Quality." But that title didn't pass muster.) I think the key in what you're saying is to determine the specific things we need to do to understand and deliver what our customers want and need. Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by Bret Pettichord 3/3/2004

I completely agree. The more i hear people talk about quality, the more i start to think that they are either trying to gloss over their problems or their own lack of intelligence. The same goes for "quality assurance". People who are smart, committed, and dedicated to excellence spend their time talking about specifics instead.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Bret, I agree. In general, I believe that capital-letter invocations of every day words like "quality" and "risk" encourage a superficial bumper-sticker approach to dealing with deep, difficult subjects. Here's to talking about specifics! Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by neill mccarthy 3/3/2004

Its not so much that quality needs re-defining, its like so many of the words people misuse or overuse; it needs a context so that every one using it has a shared understanding. Other words and phrases abused, out there in our domain, seem to be: Risk, Metrics and Best Practice. These words are part of our trade and our crafts toolset, if we abuse or devaule these words then we run the risk of devauling our role.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Neill, great point about abusing and devaluing words! And I think it's a good tipoff when ordinary words like "risk" become capital-letter concepts.

Comment:
by Jim Hazen 3/2/2004

I agree that "Quality" is a hazy subject, and that at times people use it as a club (due to lack of understanding) to make a point (I am guilty too). The key as was stated is that all groups have to understand and buy into what quality is in the process. That it is a process as well as part of other processes (preaching to the choir here). My point of contention (not with this article, bulls' eye Elisabeth ;-) ) though is that most of the time (due to lack of understanding) is that when the "Q" word is applied it is actually being meant as Testing. Too many times I have heard people (other than Test & QA) use the term QA when in fact they mean Testing. QA is more than testing alone (so much more), and that is what we as Test & QA professionals need to get across. By doing this we can begin to redefine quality, and do it so that it becomes more than just meaning "testing" to the common person....Collapse Comments

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Jim. Good point! I even hear some people use "QA" as a verb in place of "test," as in, "We have to QA that before we can ship." I think the solution is to talk about all the practices we might lump under a QA umbrella as separate and distinct things. Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by J. B. Rainsberger 3/2/2004

I like it when we remind each other that, as software developers, our goal is to provide value to the customer -- whatever that means. It was only as a consequence of gaining experience and maturing a little that I began to understand that defect-free software (at all costs) is not necessarily the most valuable software. It is /vital/ to balance competing properties of value among the customers and the developers. If programmers focus on giving the customers what they want, then the former's inate need for low defect rates will almost always /naturally/ balance the two competing concepts of quality: low defect rate and high feature count. (They compete for time; not that they are mutually contradictory.) In short, programmers, listen to your customers....Collapse Comments

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi J. B. Wow. It took me a few minutes to wrap my head around the idea that competing quality concerns will naturally balance if programmers focus on meeting customer needs rather than meeting their own internal definitions of "good." But now that you've said it, I can see how internal quality criteria (maintainability, testability, etc.) and practices like refactoring all support the ultimate goal of giving the customer good stuff fast. Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by R K 3/2/2004

Nice article. For me it doesn't matter whatever words we use to "define or re-define quality". The fundamental thing is to recognise that "Quality" doesn't happen by chance. It is a planned exercise that happens only through highly dedicated people. Having a strong customer focus is a direction towards quality. Quality happens through a participative working environment... and this is why people need to know what are the elements that contribute to customer satisfaction. Improved product features, usability, fitness for purpose, meeting implied requirements, intuitiveness etc... are all the basic elements of customer satisfaction. The bottom line is that Quality is all about satisfying the customer within the agreed parameters of cost & time. Alternatively, quality is also everything not present in the product or service that would have otherwise satisfied the customer!...Collapse Comments

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi R K, Thanks for pointing out that there are so many dimensions to satisfying customers!

Comment:
by Daniel Dresner 3/2/2004

Yes! Yes! Yes! Back in 1988 a consultancy report for the UK's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) identified the millions of pounds (Sterling!) lost to poor software quality. They came up with a quality scheme (www.tickit.org) that only has 1300 subscribers (and never had more than 1800). That's why they introduced a 'first steps' scheme to complement it (www.software-excellence.org.uk) and give everyone a 'leg up' BUT AVOIDED THE WORD 'QUALITY' the second time round.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Daniel...Thanks for that bit of information and the reference!

Comment:
by Teri Stueck 3/1/2004

Great Article! Thanks. But it begs the question... Do I need to ditch my Qual-Latte mug I got from ASQ? It's such a conversation piece.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Teri...OOOOOH! What a great mug! Now that's a Quality Pun. Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by Gene Fellner 3/1/2004

It would be so much better if people would simply say "quality assurance" instead of just "quality." Software QA coordinates risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, balance of engineering vs. customer issues and short-term vs. long-term consequences, reliability, scalability, maintainability -- virtually everything that is sidestepped by "quality" sloganeering. Semantics counts, and sometimes a slight change in wording can make a powerful difference. "Quality" is a bumper sticker. "Software Quality Assurance" is an engineering discipline.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Gene...I love your phrase "Quality is a bumper sticker." I agree! I'm not sure I agree that saying Quality Assurance is better though. I think talking about specific practices such as the ones you listed goes farther to improve understanding. Thanks for writing!

Comment:
by Tek Wallah 3/1/2004

Hear! Hear! Everyone remember that awful slogan: “Quality is Job #1”? It didn’t achieve anything except to provide a stick for companies to beat IT staff with. Ms Hendrickson is right. Let’s call people when they use these meaningless (when not qualified) terms.

Author's Response: 3/3/2004
Hi Tek. Thanks for writing! And thanks for pointing out how unfortunate it is when slogan-inducing-capital-Q-Quality is used to bludgeon people. I agree with you!