Making a difference happens through action.
Identifying the right topics is one thing, making them concrete is another. This articulation between definition and realization is a complex art, which must be accelerated in an increasingly competitive environment.
But we don’t have time to learn everything. The methodologies are therefore useful in providing ready-to-use models. However, their implementation is difficult by their lack of pragmatism, transversality, or concrete implementation elements.
I like to use my time to dig areas to organize and improve concrete action plans. I am therefore building the Quality Engineering Framework (QEF) in order to deliver Quality at Speed in your organization.
This article shares the motivations, composition and use of this framework available as a Proof of Value. Any suggestion for improvement is welcome to be taken into account in the next iterations.
Follow the QE Unit for more exclusive content from Quality Engineering.
Quality Engineering requires the collaboration of transversal areas
Quality Engineering is the force constraining the software chain to continuous value delivery. Software delivery being by nature multidisciplinary, different practices must be assembled to continuously adapt to the quality requirements.
Quality Engineering is therefore not only the business of engineering, quality or testers. Performing supposed code improvements unrelated to user value will most likely be a local optimization without any positive impact on the organization.
“Quality Engineering forces the entire software chain to meet quality requirements for continuous value delivery. Acting across the domains is a necessity.”Antoine Craske
Organizations also need to iterate over short cycles to quickly improve and extend the value proposition. The required velocity requires the application of the total quality paradigm to the software world. Extra pounds do not make it possible to run a continuous marathon.
The different expertise must therefore collaborate effectively.
Domains have a natural tendency to silo
Football players with a similar background will collaborate relatively easily. It’s much harder to achieve that between soccer, ping pong, and archery players. Yet, this is the challenge of software delivery.
A product owner will more easily interact with his peers and within his areas of expertise. Staying in a comfort zone is a natural survival mechanism that must be balanced by a counter-force. This is the cross-functional collaboration beyond organizational silos.
On the other hand, wanting to address everything in its entirety is too complex for a human. This is not, however, a reason to limit oneself to a limited prism of analysis or activities. We must first keep the global prism of Quality Engineering and then decline the necessary practices in various fields.
It is a difficulty when the fields are more and more demanding.
The specialization of expertise complicates the overall composition
We can solve more complex problems by increasingly verticalized expertise. For example, Data Science makes it possible to automate complex decision matrices by combining mathematics, computer science and knowledge of the business domain.
This hyper-specialization complicates the overall composition of skills in the value chain. Each profile must both be competent in its field and be able to collaborate with peers from different backgrounds. A framework makes it possible to optimize these exchanges by the Minimum Viable Collaboration.
The Quality Engineering Framework contains a selection of transversal practices facilitating their implementation. The methodologies make it possible to provide a common framework of execution to various actors who must then create value through their respective expertise.
Before acting, activities must be identified before being prioritized.
MAMOS provides a reference framework and a prioritization of practices
The Quality Engineering Framework is a reference framework of practices around the 5 MAMOS pillars: Methods, Architecture, Management, Organization, Skills. These areas provide a transversal framework for the identification of practices.
The prioritization of these practices is then achieved through its ability to contribute to Quality at Speed. This evaluation of the capacity to create value is evaluated under the 3 criteria of Quality, Speed and Complexity. An additional criterion is also available to adapt the prioritization according to your context.
Each practice has an evaluation between 1 and 4 defining its capacity to contribute to the Quality at Speed criterion. The total score results from the multiplication of these criteria and makes it possible to prioritize their implementation. The higher the score, the more the practice contributes to Quality at Speed with a minimum of Complexity.
It then remains to concretize this action plan in your context.
The Framework allows you to activate the Quality Engineering
The Quality Engineering Framework is currently available by themes like Quality Assistance. This makes it possible to iteratively build the model by evaluating its value with a limited number of practices.
The template allows you to access an action plan structure listing the practices by implementation priority. You can use it to drive your Quality Engineering implementation roadmap by entering the status, manager and associated notes.
Each practice is now documented with a pointer for its implementation. The objective is to enrich each practice with the most useful description and resources for its implementation. It is also in the interest of working in community to improve ourselves through sharing.
Follow the QE Unit for more Quality Engineering.
Share and suggest improvements on this page.
This work is available under the following license: attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)