Building Quality In - A Framework for Engineering Teams
A framework on how engineering teams can build quality into their software systems
We know quality when we see it - but why is it so hard to define, let alone build? Some companies seem to achieve quality effortlessly, while others struggle endlessly. Too often, teams only recognise quality in its absence: defects, failures, and rework. But as W. Edwards Deming put it, “Quality cannot be inspected into a product or service; it must be built into it.”
So, how do we build quality in?
In this post, which shares the thinking behind my latest talk, Building Quality In - A Framework for Engineering Teams, I explore that question. Using findings from Google’s recent research into how engineers define and perceive quality, I outline a practical framework to help teams embed and sustain it. The aim is to help you shift from reacting to failures to actively shaping quality through the way you work, by building quality in your products, processes and people.
Takeaways:
A clear, actionable definition of quality and how to introduce it to your teams.
A framework for embedding quality into people, processes, and products.
Practical steps to start building quality in today.
Contents
What happens when we lose quality
Boeing 737 Max
Peanut Corporation of America
Volkswagen’s Dieselgate
What should they have done?
🎥 30-minute recording of the whole talk
Building quality in through a culture of quality
The word quality doesn’t tell you anything
What does the word quality mean?
What does quality mean for software engineering teams?
What quality attributes should we be considering?
How do we improve the quality attributes we value?
Option 1: Just ship it?
Option 2: Inspect for quality?
Option 3: Apply pressure to deliver more?
Software rot
How do we resolve all these issues?
Google's Theory of Software Quality
Process quality
Code quality
System quality
Product quality
Something’s missing: Software Systems
How to use the theory of software systems quality
What do we have?
Expanding our views of quality
Talk to your stakeholders
🗺️ NEW: Workshop guide on How to Run a Quality Mapping Session with your teams.
What product quality attributes should we consider?
What people quality attributes should we consider?
How to apply the framework?
How does the theory of software systems quality build quality in?
Building quality in from the beginning
Building quality in during development
Building quality into the people
Building quality into production
What does this approach do?
Please note that this is a long post with quite a few images, so it is best viewed in a browser/substack app rather than your email client, which is likely to truncate the post.
What happens when we lose quality
Boeing 737 Max
In 2010, Boeing faced stiff competition from Airbus, which had just released a new plane that was 15% more fuel efficient than anything Boeing had.
Boeing felt it had to respond quickly, so it pulled out all the stops and released the Boeing 737 Max 8 in just six years.
Unfortunately, they may have pulled out too many stops, and in 2018, two 737 Max planes within 5 months of each other crashed, killing everyone on board.
The outcome for Boeing was that they sacrificed the quality of their product to appear responsive to Airbus's threat.
Peanut Corporation of America
From the 1970s through to the 2000s, the Peanut Corporation of America provided peanut and peanut butter products to 100's of food manufacturers, such as makers of cookies, snacks, ice cream, and even dog treats.
However, in 2008, it knowingly shipped peanut products that contained salmonella, which triggered one of the biggest food recalls in American history.
The outcome for the Peanut Corporation of America was that they sacrificed the quality of its processes and public health for profits.
Volkswagen’s Dieselgate
In 2015, Volkswagen was the world's largest car manufacturer, having sold nearly 10 million cars worldwide. Later that year, it was discovered that VW had installed software in its cars that allowed it to report that it was fully compliant with emissions testing. However, when driven normally, the software would be deactivated and allowed cars to release up to 40 times more nitrogen oxide (NOx) than was legally permitted.
Nitrogen oxides can cause smog to develop in cities and are strongly linked to lung cancer. The cover-up was nicknamed Dieselgate, where Volkswagen leadership demanded that their engineering teams deliver the impossible: an environmentally friendly, highly performant diesel engine.
But the outcome for Volkswagen was that they sacrificed the integrity of their employees by prioritising sales to become the biggest selling car manufacturer.
What should they have done?
If you ask the experts, they all have slightly different views. Some would say all three resulted in product quality issues that should have been spotted before they shipped. All three should have had processes that detected and ideally, prevented the quality issues. And all three would have had people who knew this was happening and didn't or couldn't speak up about the issues.
You could put companies through more inspections to check that their products are up to standard, implement more stringent processes that detect and prevent issues, or fire the bad actors who caused these issues.
All of this would work in the short term, but what stops similar quality issues from happening again in the future? Something about the culture of these companies contributed to these outcomes.
So, in order to improve quality, you need to improve it everywhere, and that's no easy thing to do. Where are you even meant to start? It's not like you can stop production for a few months and fix all the problems. You need to fix all these issues while still shipping.
We need a framework that helps engineering teams understand what quality is, why it matters, and how we can start building it in.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Quality Engineering Newsletter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.