Bringing Software Quality to the Enterprise

Why Quality?

The approach of the qPrise Software Development System (qSDS) may be viewed by some as naive, or impractical. To mandate quality assurance practices in all work may appear to be expensive, time-consuming and unnecessary. We believe that this evaluation is short-sited, and in fact, itself naive.

"Quality doesn't cost money; it makes money. What costs is non-quality; the price we pay for not getting things right the first time." This quotation, from Making Quality Happen by Roy Fox (1991), sums up our position precisely.

Fox goes on to say that

"Thirty percent of people in government, public and private enterprise are engaged in rework - doing their job (or someone else's) over again for the second, third or fourth time... Non-quality is adding between 10 and 20 per cent to operating costs right across Australia."

With this in mind, the financial case for quality becomes relatively clear. The reduction of wasted time, effort and resources, and an increase in customer satisfaction is easily equal to the costs associated with implementing a quality assurance program.

However, quality is not only justified on a financial basis. A quality environment is a better environment in which to work. This statement is not easy to justify objectively, but subjectively, it should be obvious that less reworking, less iterations, an improved financial position and better customer relations will contribute to lowered levels of frustration and improved morale. A quality environment improves the 'quality of life' and general well being of people in an organisation.

In the software industry, the generally healthy employment prospects enjoyed by the majority of qualified IT professionals means many are looking more and more to differentiators such as the quality environment when choosing an employer. Because of the fierce competition to attract capable employees in this sector, most IT companies are forced to offer high salaries and valuable incentives. Thus, these more 'traditional' ways of evaluating a position cease to be differentiators. Thus, IT professionals look to other factors.

In fact, compared to implementing formal quality management, financial incentives are relatively easy for a company to offer and prospective employee. Financial incentives require only a financial commitment (which may or may not be available), but providing a quality environment involves both a financial commitment, and a structural commitment that may mandate significant changes in the way work is done.

Finally, quality working methods improve the reliability of all aspects of the work of an organisation. Quality methodologies tend to expose the working of a company to objective scrutiny, and promote an analytical approach to decision-making. This means that why a task is done, and why it is done a certain way is always understood. This in turn promotes a predictive understanding of the work. Issues that arise are generally exposed earlier (which increases available response time), and output is more consistent.

A quality environment is not difficult to justify. With the improvements that formal quality management gives to a company's financial position, working conditions and reliability, it is, in fact, difficult to justify a lack of quality management.

This site is under construction. Please check back with us again soon. In the meantime, enquiries may be directed to enquiries@qprise.com.