Differences between testing and QA in practice - what do people think?

[grey_lady]

Thanks HeadofTesting.

[HeadOfTesting]

'Testing would ensure that whatever the developers produce, works.
QA would ensure that what they produce satisfies the original requirements'

But surely that's the same as verification testing and validation testing?

Thanks for the replies by the way.

Yes the verification/validation parallel can start to break down under scrutiny. For example, causal analysis of defects would be considered a QA activity but is not centered about whether the correct thing was built. This example also highlights that the view expressed above that testing comes before QA is rather short-sighted. QA should be interwoven in to the process from day 1.

Here are my conclusions based on what I've osberved over the years:

- The testing community can't agree on the distinction so why should anyone else.
- It's not worth agonising over the distinction (see point above)
- Most organisations use the terms interchangeably
- No attempt should be made to draw a distinction within those organisations who use the terms interchangeably (that's not the same as saying that both sets of activities should not be addressed).
- If you're a test manager you should not bother applying to a properly titled QA manager role (CMMI, Six Sigma, ISO etc)
- If you want to catch out a candidate in an interview asking them to articulate the distinction is a good one - almost as good as asking candidates to distinguish between validation and verification (only about 1% of candidates for testing roles know that in my experience even if they have VV&T engineer positions on their CV).

[MPwannadecentincome]

Reading your Wikipedia quote: Testing would ensure that whatever the developers produce, works. QA would ensure that what they produce satisfies the original requirements.

Testing: Provided it is documented as to what 'works' means!

[MPwannadecentincome]

wikipedia: 'Software Testing is a task intended to detect defects in software by contrasting a computer program's expected results with its actual results for a given set of inputs. By contrast, QA (Quality Assurance) is the implementation of policies and procedures intended to prevent defects from occurring in the first place.'

Any thoughts on this, how does QA work generally?

It depends on the organisation, I started my career in the defence industry 24 years ago - the company had a QA dept (2 people) who did exactly that.

[oracleslave]

Hey, if you get paid well enough, wouldn't you?

absofrigginglutely

[grey_lady]

'Testing would ensure that whatever the developers produce, works.
QA would ensure that what they produce satisfies the original requirements'

But surely that's the same as verification testing and validation testing?

Thanks for the replies by the way.

[Mich the Tester]

People make careers out of that? Sounds like something for an office admin clerk to me.

Hey, if you get paid well enough, wouldn't you?

[oracleslave]

making sure that preferred technologies have been used and licences have ben paid for; making sure the documentation is in line with whatever standard they're working to that week

People make careers out of that? Sounds like something for an office admin clerk to me.

[DaveB]

In the world of Prince II Quality is seperate from technical testing. In this context Quality is the degree to which the completed deliverable meets it's originally specified requirements, not just in terms of performance and execution but also with repsect to it's specified purpose.

In other words, is this deliverable fit for the purpose for which it has been supplied?

Technical testing would take place prior to QA to ensure correct operation. QA ensures that the operations that it perfoms match the original requirements and purpose.

Reading your Wikipedia quote: Testing would ensure that whatever the developers produce, works. QA would ensure that what they produce satisfies the original requirements.

[ace00]

QA is a function of Q x A where A= (t/x / S)^3.14

[Mich the Tester]

QA in that sense could include code reviews; making sure that preferred technologies have been used and licences have ben paid for; making sure the documentation is in line with whatever standard they're working to that week; maybe some deconfliction with other releases.

Testing can include code reviews too.

[thunderlizard]

QA in that sense could include code reviews; making sure that preferred technologies have been used and licences have ben paid for; making sure the documentation is in line with whatever standard they're working to that week; maybe some deconfliction with other releases.

[Wilmslow]

For the first time I find myself (TM) in a company where testing and QA seem to be totally seperate. Previously I'vealways thought of them being the same thing, e.g testing with good reporting and continually trying to find ways to improve the testing process.

QA outside of testing just isnt something I've come across, but the past few years i've been in agile environments.

wikipedia: 'Software Testing is a task intended to detect defects in software by contrasting a computer program's expected results with its actual results for a given set of inputs. By contrast, QA (Quality Assurance) is the implementation of policies and procedures intended to prevent defects from occurring in the first place.'

Any thoughts on this, how does QA work generally?

I used to be a Test Lead, currently working as a Quality Consultant - lods of clear boundaries and lots of shades of grey all depending on the firm that you are in, plus how they are viewing the areas.

For example, a senior IT manager recently asked me to be responsible for the tesitng of a major project single handed not aware or wanting to pay for the appropriate test resource.

My role is working very closely with the Test Leads and Project Managers to ensure that an appropriate process to development is followed, while not doing the testing itself, although lots of consultancy and training aspects to the role.

[Mich the Tester]

how does QA work generally?

Not very well usually.

However, in theory testing is a discipline that's part of an organisation's Quality Assurance strategy; other aspects could include selection of suppliers according to a set process, guidelines for providing training to employees, guidelines for systems admin procedures etc etc etc

[grey_lady]

For the first time I find myself (TM) in a company where testing and QA seem to be totally seperate. Previously I'vealways thought of them being the same thing, e.g testing with good reporting and continually trying to find ways to improve the testing process.

QA outside of testing just isnt something I've come across, but the past few years i've been in agile environments.

wikipedia: 'Software Testing is a task intended to detect defects in software by contrasting a computer program's expected results with its actual results for a given set of inputs. By contrast, QA (Quality Assurance) is the implementation of policies and procedures intended to prevent defects from occurring in the first place.'

Any thoughts on this, how does QA work generally?