It’s poll time to support our next Testing Planet episode on Quality Coaching.
Help us out! Your contributions matter and count towards our ongoing research and creation for the MoTaverse.
How much do you agree with this statement?
Quality Coaching is often misunderstood and Quality Coaches struggle to demonstrate their value.
Bonus points for added community commentary
Here’s some thoughts I have on this based off of the top of my head:
I think there is a disconnect between the role being misunderstood and the terminology. Lets face facts in our industry it evolves in inventing terms for tasks that were already happening but not under the new umbrella term.
So from my experience if focus less on the terminology and more on the tasks and people you need to influence to ensure better quality outcomes, then call it what you like. 
I’m somewhere between slightly agree and slightly disagree.
I don’t think the role is necessarily misunderstood, but I do think it can be difficult to demonstrate the value.
“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” => You can coach a team on how to improve quality and testing, but you can’t make them do anything differently. Of course, influencing and leading is part of the role, but there really are some very difficult situations where demonstrating positive impact can be difficult, especially without coming across as assigning blame / avoiding responsibility.
I think Quality Coaching can be both very valuable and very difficult.
Different companies and people will have different views of what it is but there are some elements that sort of stand out for deeper understanding.
It seems a reasonable amount of quality coaches came from testing backgrounds myself included and that can create a bias towards testing being a key part of what they are coaching on, sometimes to the extent they maybe test coaches rather than the broader quality coaches.
That broader quality view can require a broad prior role experience to be effective, coaching developers on quality without ever being a developer is likely going to be more challenging than if you had been a developer previously, however its unlikely that the quality coach will have been in the shoes of all stakeholders so to some level that needs to be accepted. Helping people and teams find their own solutions can transition well even if you have never done their job before.
The goals of a quality coach can make that element clearer but again that can also change from company to company.
When I try and limit my coaching side to around 20% my goals are likely fairly different from a full time coach for example even if we share some common core goals.
Im the other flip of the 12 sided dice.
I feel Quality Coaching can be misunderstood BUT Quality Coaches should not struggle to demonstrate their value - especially if that is their job otherwise how did they get the role in the first place. If they genuinely are not seen as adding value despite it being proven by the QC there are bigger issues in the org.
QC’s play a crucial role in software testing by empowering delivery, and that quality is thought about or acted on throughout the development process. There is no “ensuring*” from QC’s that you see in thousands of job role adverts. (Does me in when people use the word ensure when you can’t) The collaboration and alternative ways of thinking is just priceless so how do you quantify that to the people who only care about those types of things.
BUT as people have said above it depends on someones definition of a QC. This is what I feel they can offer or support with:
Good or expert guidance - advice on best practices, tools, and methodologies to improve the quality of the software.
Process improvement - they can help identify inefficiencies in the testing process and suggest improvements to streamline workflows.
Skill development - mentor and train team members, enhancing their testing skills and knowledge.
Quality advocacy - for quality at every stage of development, support mindset that it is a priority for the entire team.
Risk management - identifying potential risks early, they can help mitigate issues before they become critical problems.
Collaboration enhancement - could foster better communication and collaboration between development and testing teams.
How ? Great question glad you asked.
Metrics and reporting to show improvements in defect rates, test coverage, and overall software quality. Success stories for the WIN! Share case studies or examples of past projects where their involvement led to significant quality improvements.
Example - A super fit scottish gal at a large financial institution identified gaps in test coverage and implemented a comprehensive testing strategy. By introducing automated testing tools and training the team on their use, the coach significantly improved test coverage. As a result, the number of critical defects found in production decreased by 40%, leading to higher customer satisfaction and reduced maintenance costs - plus we all got a bonus as a thank you! I mean they…
Then there’s training sessions, workshops and riskstorming to demonstrate expertise and the benefits of their guidance. Fast feedback and over time - gather and present feedback from team members and stakeholders to highlight their positive impact. I mean reporting in general is a win - regular updates on quality initiatives and their outcomes to keep everyone informed of progress. Then if you have visible improvements then showcase those tangible improvements in the development process and product quality as a result of their interventions.
I am interviewing people internally atm for QC’s and I am asking them what they would investigate to determine their leadership OKRs high level as I feel the teams do not think about Quality (not true its a scenario). I personally would expect this:
Improving Test Coverage and Reducing Defects
Enhancing Collaboration and Efficiency
Streamlining Processes and Reducing Time-to-Market
Building a Quality-First Mindset
I’d say Quality coaching is rather not misunderstood by the ones demanding it.
I see it more that the coaches understand little of the demands in quality changes that the company requires. They end up not being equipped well enough to manage meaningful changes in the sense that was requested of them.
I wouldn’t agree with this. As a quality coach I feel fully abreast of the demands and changes my organisation needs and the ones I would additionally recommend.
I actively run sessions to uncover areas of quality needs with the organisation in the wide and have discussions in the small. That allows me to keep on top of any changes to the quality landscape that needs supporting.
It was meant as often not always.
And in the quality coaches bucket I include everyone that drives/manages some sort of quality of product, system, process, code improvement action (they can be scrum masters, dev leads, engineering managers, IT heads, architects, program/product managers, etc).
Also to be distinguished from teaching and mentoring.