In one of my previous roles, I noticed the product manager and lead developer often conducted investigative work without QA involvement. Their goal was to understand the system better to create improved stories and tickets. While this is valid, such investigations greatly benefit from QA participation. QA can enhance discussions by offering insights into system behavior, identifying potential risks, and suggesting user-centric scenarios that might be overlooked. For example, QA involvement can uncover edge cases early, propose test scenarios that align with real-world user behavior, and highlight potential dependencies or conflicts in the system’s design. This collaborative input strengthens the team’s understanding and leads to better outcomes.
QA professionals spend their time investigating systems, checking developers’ work, and thinking through user scenarios. Excluding QA diminishes their role and limits their contribution. QA professionals, having tested the system thoroughly, can provide unique perspectives and better represent the user compared to developers. Engaging QA at this stage can also help shift left and foster the development of T-shaped engineers those with broad skills across the lifecycle of a ticket and deep expertise in QA as opposed to I-shaped engineers, who focus narrowly on specific tasks like testing only after development is complete.
The Cost of Excluding QA
Excluding QA from investigative processes marginalizes their responsibilities and misses an opportunity to leverage their expertise in identifying risks, edge cases, and overlooked behaviors. When QA isn’t integrated into these processes, their value to the team is constrained.
Variability in QA Roles
QA roles vary greatly across companies, often depending on how development leads and product managers perceive their importance. This variability arises from differences in organizational priorities, team structures, and cultural attitudes toward quality assurance. For instance, some companies view QA as a critical partner in development, while others see it as a final checkpoint for defects. This disparity impacts QA effectiveness: teams that integrate QA throughout the process benefit from their insights, whereas those that limit QA to testing phases underutilize their potential and risk missing critical issues early.
The Keys to QA Effectiveness
QA effectiveness depends on two main factors:
- QA Skills: Skilled QA professionals excel in testing, system analysis, identifying issues early, and contributing to strong requirements and user stories. Their insights significantly enhance both the development process and the final product.
- Assigned Responsibilities: The scope of QA’s role is often determined by the team’s perception of their importance. When QA is involved early in exploratory investigations, requirements refinement, and risk assessments, their full potential is unlocked. Limiting them to test execution leaves critical gaps in the process.
Unlocking QA’s Full Potential
Organizations must recognize QA as more than a safety net for defects. QA should actively contribute to system analysis, process improvement, and mentoring on quality practices. Fully leveraging QA as a proactive resource ensures better team and product outcomes.
To maximize QA’s value, companies should:
- Involve QA early in product planning and requirement gathering.
- Foster collaboration between QA, developers, and product managers during investigations.
- Provide opportunities for QA professionals to expand their skills and responsibilities.
- Promote a shared understanding of quality as a team responsibility, with QA playing a pivotal role.
By adopting these practices, teams can unlock QA’s full potential, leading to better products and outcomes.
