QA plays a crucial role in software development, ensuring that the final product meets the desired standards and user expectations. Every product manager knows that there is nothing worse than going live with a new exciting feature, only to discover a critical bug in production.

I always worked in organizations that had dedicated QA teams and I learned to appreciate their critical role. However, in my current workplace, there has been a shift to this mindset. There is no dedicated QA, and the developers are the owners of the quality assurance process; from writing test scripts to handling testing automation. In this post, I will share my reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of taking each approach.

Advantages of Having QA Testers on the Team:

1. Specialized Expertise: QA testers possess specialized knowledge and skills in testing methodologies, tools, and techniques. They bring a unique perspective to the team, focusing solely on quality-related aspects. Their expertise helps identify defects and vulnerabilities that developers may overlook due to their primary focus on coding. Their skills include highly critical, detailed thinking which is most valuable in all development phases. A seasoned QA tester can identify critical bugs or usability issues that might have otherwise slipped through the cracks, ensuring a smoother end-user experience.

2. Independent Perspective: QA testers provide an unbiased viewpoint, detached from the development process. They approach the software with a fresh set of eyes, enabling them to identify potential issues or inconsistencies from a user’s standpoint. This independence helps ensure a more thorough and comprehensive testing process.

3. Time and Efficiency: When developers are responsible for QA, it may divert their focus and time away from core development tasks. This can potentially slow down the development process, leading to longer project timelines and increased costs. By having a dedicated QA tester on the team, developers can focus on their core responsibilities of coding and implementing new features. It saves invaluable time for developers by offloading the testing responsibilities, enabling them to concentrate on writing quality code and meeting project deadlines.
   It’s worth mentioning that in this scenario, not only developers’ time is consumed. When developers are responsible for the testing process, additional team members are often requested to assist in the testing process, leading to a costly loss of work hours. Oftentimes, these issues would have been discovered earlier by a professional QA tester.

4. Inefficiencies in Testing: Developers may not have the same level of expertise or experience in testing methodologies and tools as dedicated QA testers. This can result in less efficient testing practices, including incomplete test coverage, overlooking critical test cases, or inadequate regression testing. Such inefficiencies may lead to an increased likelihood of undetected bugs and a higher chance of post-release issues, requiring additional time and resources for bug fixes and maintenance.

5. Context Switching: Developers switching between development and testing roles may experience productivity and efficiency losses due to the need to mentally shift gears and context. Frequent context switching can introduce distractions, reduce focus, and potentially increase the risk of errors, thereby impacting overall quality and productivity.

6. Debugging and Issue Resolution: While developers possess technical expertise in coding, their skills in debugging and issue resolution might vary. Dedicated QA testers often excel in identifying and isolating bugs, providing clear and concise bug reports, and assisting developers in quickly resolving issues. Without their specialized skills, developers may spend more time troubleshooting, impacting their productivity and delaying project delivery.

7. User Perspective: Developers who QA their own code might inadvertently overlook usability and user experience issues. QA testers, with their user-focused approach, can provide valuable insights into areas where the software may not meet user expectations. Neglecting such aspects may result in suboptimal user experiences, customer dissatisfaction, and potential losses in revenue or reputation.

Advantages to Developers’ Ownership of the Testing Process:

1. Communication and Collaboration Overhead: Having a separate QA tester might introduce communication and collaboration challenges. If developers and QA testers fail to communicate clearly about the intended functionality, the testers may focus on different aspects or test cases, potentially missing critical issues that the developers were concerned about.

2. Delayed Bug Identification: If developers QA their own code, they can quickly identify and address bugs as they arise during the development process. In contrast, relying solely on a QA tester may lead to a delay in bug identification, as testers typically perform testing on the completed product or its specific milestones.

3. Contextual Knowledge Gap: QA testers might not possess the same level of in-depth technical knowledge as the developers. While testers focus on ensuring the software’s functionality and user experience, they may lack the deep understanding of the codebase that developers possess. This knowledge gap can sometimes hinder efficient bug reproduction or understanding of complex issues.

4. Sense of Ownership: By involving developers in the QA process, organizations foster a sense of accountability and responsibility among the development team. Oftentimes, developers rely too heavily on QA teams. leading to writing bad code quality. When developers are responsible for testing their own code, they become more accountable for the quality of their work.
   This approach encourages them to write cleaner and more robust code from the outset, as they are aware that they will be directly involved in the testing and debugging process. Developers become more proactive in identifying and addressing potential issues, leading to an overall improvement in code quality, and a more stable and reliable product.

If the dev team is the testing team, it’s highly recommended to test on real devices and not just test simulators. Additionally, organized procedures should take place that will also include manual testing on various devices.

Testing ‘Parties’

Another approach to software testing involves organizing “testing parties,” where stakeholders from various teams gather together to collectively test the application. This collaborative testing process offers several advantages:

1. It allows for a broader range of perspectives and feedback, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of the software’s functionality and usability. Different stakeholders bring their unique insights, helping to uncover issues that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.
2. Testing parties foster communication and collaboration between team members, promoting a shared understanding of the project’s goals and requirements.
3. It enables testing on various devices and OS that are not necessarily available for the dev/QA team.

However, it’s important to note that organizing testing parties can also have drawbacks:

1. Coordinating schedules and the availability of multiple stakeholders can be challenging, potentially leading to delays.
2. This method, when done frequently, comes at the high cost of utilizing the invaluable work time of other company employees, which could have been saved by hiring a seasoned QA expert.

To summarize: Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. While a QA tester brings specialized skills, an independent perspective, and enhanced testing coverage, developers can quickly address bugs during the development process and would write better code having a QA mindset. I think the best approach would be to combine both. Developers would perform the initial testing while also leveraging the expertise of dedicated QA testers, to strike a healthy balance between ownership, responsibility, and thorough quality assurance.

What do you think? Which approach is better?