posted 02-08-2002 06:07 AM         

Some believe that QA is an IT function, and as such, they should report under engineering or MIS/IT - in many cases to the CTO/CIO.

Others believe that QA is a business function, and as such, they should report under the business side, eventually to the CFO.

And still others (like myself) believe that QA should be an independant group.

My personal take is that QA (and test, under the QA umbrella) should be an independant group. That does not mean there should be a 'division', as is often seen in companies, but rather that QA should NOT report to the VP of Development, because this person may often have a conflict. Similarly, in reporting to a Project Management VP, conflicts can also occur, but in a different manner.

That being said, I don't think there is a standard right now. Companies aren't sure where, and it's tough to advocate a particular position when even members of the Quality community are unsure of what would be the proper company structure... I'll be interested to hear other opinions.

posted 02-08-2002 06:49 AM         

Unfortunately, here - project management runs development, and yes - we report to the grand poobah of project management.

posted 02-08-2002 08:07 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramones:
Hi - at my company, SW QA reports to Eng. Is this normal? Seems like a conflict of intererst, as their QA timelines are always squeezed and shortened. What dept. does QA usually report to?

---

In your situation, I would imagine that would be a conflict of interest. Where I work, I am the Software QA/Test department and I report to the PC Development Manager and not a project manager. Well, sometimes I do report to a project manager but I've been given the authority to say when something is ready for release, so there is never a problem with a manager overriding my decision.

posted 02-08-2002 09:44 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramones:
Hi - at my company, SW QA reports to Eng. Is this normal? Seems like a conflict of intererst, as their QA timelines are always squeezed and shortened. What dept. does QA usually report to?

---

Here is a quote from the "Key Practices of the Capability Matury Model, Version 1.1"
HTH,
Elfriede

quote:

---

from the CMM

4.4.3 Independence and Organizational Structure
The organization must take care that the key practices that call for
independence are appropriately interpreted and followed. This is
particularly true for small projects and small organizations. The key
practices call for independence when technical or organizational biases may
affect the quality or risks associated with the project. For example, two
practices dealing with independence are:
-The SQA group has a reporting channel to senior management
that is independent of the project manager, the project's software
engineering group, and the other software-related groups
(Commitment 1.2 in Software Quality Assurance).
-The (system and acceptance) test cases and test procedures are
planned and prepared by a test group that is independent of the
software developers (Activity 7.3 in Software Product
Engineering).
The need for independence of the system and acceptance testing is based on
technical considerations. This independence ensures that the testers are not
inappropriately influenced by the design and implementation decisions
made by the software developers or maintainers.
The independence of the SQA group is necessary so its members can
perform their jobs without being influenced by project schedule and cost
pressures. Ensuring effective operational independence without the
organizational independence is difficult. For example, an employee
reporting to the project manager may be reluctant to stop a test activity even
though serious noncompliance issues exist.
Organizations must determine the organizational structure that will
support activities that require independence, such as SQA, in the context of
their strategic business goals and business environment.
Independence should:
-provide the individuals performing the SQA role with the
organizational freedom to be the "eyes and ears" of senior
management on the project,
-protect the individuals performing the SQA role from
performance appraisal by the management of the project about
which they are reporting, and
-provide senior management with confidence that objective
information on the process and products of the project is being
reported.
Since the key practices allow interpretation of the independence criteria,
professional judgment must be exercised by the organization in
determining whether the goals of the key process area are achieved.

---

posted 02-08-2002 08:00 PM         

I agree that it would be an ideal situation to be independant. However, the cost justification is difficult for that. Although there are indeed metrics in many 'flavors' that prove the value of QA, it's not that easy in reality for the QA dept to actually collect $$$ for the company coffers without the support and backing of IT and business. The old "show me the money".

posted 02-08-2002 08:24 PM           

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramones:
Hi - at my company, SW QA reports to Eng. Is this normal? Seems like a conflict of intererst...

---

I am not sure how normal or abnormal one could say it is without numbers indicating the relative frequency of this overall. However, I will say it is certainly not unheard of and I would not even say that it is uncommon.

You are right about the conflict of interest, however. One main problem with this type of hieracrchy is that the ostensible unbiased nature of the QA team stands a good chance of going right out the window since the QA manager reports directly to the engineering/development manager, which could put a conscientious QA manager in the unenviable position of pursuing an agenda that might be contrary to the that of the development manager or at least at odds with that person. At the very least, their traditional goals are different. This hierarchy also generally means that engineering/development is in charge of resources for both QA and development with the obvious bias that ensues from that. Perhaps largest of all, the authority of the QA team in this case is virtually nil, at least in most cases that I have seen.

quote:

---

What dept. does QA usually report to?

---

What you mentioned above is definitely one type of hierarchy. Another is where the QA Manager and the Development Manager both report to the Project Manager. A problem with this hierarchy is that the QA team is not strictly independent, even considering the difference between this the case where QA reports to development. A project manager's agenda will generally be very akin to that of a development manager and so, in reality, not much has changed from the first scenario. The good thing, however, is that there is usually a separate budget for resources and staff between testing and development in these cases. Another benefit is that defect reports and any issues go directly to project management rather than being filtered through the development manager, which can sometimes be a problem. Also, if you have a project manager that is sympathetic to the needs of quality, this scenario might not be as bad as it could be.

Yet a third scenario, and by far the ideal of the two so far discussed is where the Project Manager, QA Manager, and Development Manager all report to some sort of executive management, whether that be a CTO or some sort of overall Director. This hierarchy is generally pretty good because QA has the direct ear of the top management and thus there is probably not a great deal of bias, unless of course the executive manager has an inherent bias against QA or leans more towards development. A negative of this, however, is that the top level of management is getting a lot of reports from each manager type and thus may not be as up-to-date on all the relevant issues. They have to be a jack-of-all-trades and QA's voice is just one among many competing others. However, this problem is usually offset by the fact that each manager at least has a voice in this scenario and, further, they are all peers in the model thus problems of political clout are (hopefully) minimized if not entirely removed.

So your ideal is for QA to report to some sort of senior management and for development and project managers to be horizontal to QA, rather than vertical, on the organizational charts.