The human context of quality

Recently the universe decided to test me to see how strong my commitment to software quality really was.

Last September my previous employer laid off its entire engineering staff. I interviewed with several companies, and was quickly hired as a senior test engineer at an Internet commerce company that sells publicly available personal information online. I had some concerns about working for a company that enables "spying on people", as one friend of mine put it. I also knew from prior experience that many public records contain outdated or inaccurate information. But it seemed on the surface to be a good opportunity to use my experience to help build a software quality department from the ground up.

After arriving, I learned that this company did software development very differently than any company I had worked for. The software development, quality assurance, and release cycle seemed deeply flawed to me. New features were released almost every day, with only minimal testing by developers, and no time for QA to plan thorough testing before release.

I had previously worked in Agile environments with release cycles measured in weeks, and on hot fix releases that had to go out in a day or two, but only to specific customers for whom the benefit of a quick fix outweighed the risk of a quick release. Working at this company was like doing a patch release to everyone in the world, every day.

I have a lot of experience testing web applications, and realized that in such an environment, I would be unable to catch most of the defects before release. To be fair, defects found in production were fixed quickly. Still, I saw no way to be successful as I usually define it. Still I did the best I could for as long as I could.

Was this company wrong to develop software this way? Some would say no. For example, in the context-driven approach to software testing, there are no best practices that apply to the entire software industry. QA exists to provide information to the development team, nothing more. QA must use processes that are appropriate to the business and the practices of a company, whatever they are. Releasing lightly tested code would be criminal in the aerospace or medical industries, but for an e-commerce company selling public information, it might not be.

I still thought it was wrong. Even when a company has good customer support, and the worst consequence of a customer getting charged for bad information is a refund, the software has still wasted the customer's time and created unnecessary confusion and stress in their lives. The corporate context is not the only context that matters. Software that interacts with human beings should treat them humanely.

I saw little chance of convincing the company of that view. After all, they had been doing this for years, and their company was growing and seemed to be doing well financially. Some of the people I would have to convince to change the development process had designed that process in the first place. These same folks owned a lot of stock in the company, and were set to make millions when the company went public. Why should they listen to me?

I did some testing of my own. I proposed various small changes to the software process that were well justified and should have been relatively uncontroversial. I couldn't get my development manager to approve any of them.

The conflict between the company's values and my own began to create more and more stress for me. I finally reached a point where the stress of having to find a new job seemed less terrible than what I was experiencing every day. Three months after I started, after a particularly bad day, I resigned.

I don't blame the employer for the mismatch. It's hard to see a values conflict coming until you experience it. Still, there were signs in the interview that I should have paid more attention to, and questions that I could have asked but did not. The experience has helped me to a deeper understanding of what type of work environment I need, and what types of companies I would consider working for in the future.