Skipping QA activities

• Reduced or cancelled test activities.

• Lack of test resources

• Decreased quality levels after failed test

• Anyone claiming that this is a risk that is acceptable.

Two structures will kill the project: accumulating technical debt and not being aware of its true consequences.

​

Before the project reached this point of desperation, many bad decisions were made, all of which required significantly more QA activities, definitely not less.

The cost of cleaning up after the ripple effects from a single quality issue is shockingly high, and if known, the only reasonable strategy is to stop the bleeding as soon as possible.

But to understand the root cause, we need to dig one step deeper. There are two major structures: underestimation and lack of skills. Both can be relevant.

​

Underestimation! If the project was initiated with an unrealistic budget and schedule, the excessive pressure on the team provoked many bad decisions. When the team decided to skip QA activities, enough consequences have surfaced to call for the desperate action. But there is more beneath the surface, and continuing blindfolded is really a bad strategy.

​

Lack of skills! The steering group let this happen, which indicates an immature steering group that is assuming to have enough overview to accept the risks. This would be somewhat realistic in a simple project, but not in a complex project, where the nature of the complexity is that you can not know all the consequences.

​

The predictions for the future are really bad if those structures are not eliminated. Since the steering group is not aware of the true costs, it is highly likely that the planning optimism that created the need for skipping QA activities will only increase exponentially, leading to disaster.

​

Yes – this is bad news, and you have to consider your own role in the structures, but at least you know now.  

Don’t accept! Re-establish a healthy project, or cancel.

Continuing “as is” will be very expensive in the end.

The chance is high that the current management will come up with revised estimates that will only slightly exceed the total initial budget, including all accessible contingency funds.

It may look reasonable to continue. But be aware that if the same structures create the estimates, then the excessive optimism that created the problem in the first place will only be more optimistic in this situation where all is desperately looking for a solution, other than acknowledging that the business case has failed. It makes no sense to throw more money after bad money.

The alternative is to reevaluate the business case in light of a realistic budget. This will, very obviously, be more expensive. Less obvious is that, in the end, it will be significantly less expensive than continuing the current strategy.

But you are the sponsor. It may be better to take the poor three-legged horse behind the barn.“Skipping QA activities” may be the first early warning sign enabling you to act fast.

A detailed analysis of the cost of delaying the knowledge that the QA activities would have revealed, including expected ripple effects.

Extraordinary proof/reasoning for the renewed optimism.