Should QA ask requirements to developers?
Considering Agile software development process. Is it a good practice to ask requirements directly to developers rather than product owner ? Just because development team had gathered some requirement from product owner as they are ahead with development. Ideally from whom QA should gather requirements ?
agile-testing agile development-process
New contributor
add a comment |
Considering Agile software development process. Is it a good practice to ask requirements directly to developers rather than product owner ? Just because development team had gathered some requirement from product owner as they are ahead with development. Ideally from whom QA should gather requirements ?
agile-testing agile development-process
New contributor
1
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Considering Agile software development process. Is it a good practice to ask requirements directly to developers rather than product owner ? Just because development team had gathered some requirement from product owner as they are ahead with development. Ideally from whom QA should gather requirements ?
agile-testing agile development-process
New contributor
Considering Agile software development process. Is it a good practice to ask requirements directly to developers rather than product owner ? Just because development team had gathered some requirement from product owner as they are ahead with development. Ideally from whom QA should gather requirements ?
agile-testing agile development-process
agile-testing agile development-process
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 15 hours ago
Shubham TakodeShubham Takode
1364
1364
New contributor
New contributor
1
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
add a comment |
1
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
1
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
No. Requirements should be originated from a single point. Your developers might misunderstand something so that you'll be testing not what your stakeholders require but what your developers implemented (effect of a broken phone).
Asking your product owner will let you catch the gaps between what the business expects vs what your team actually implemented.
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn't say it's "good practice" to ask the developers for requirements, as they'll have their own interpretation of them.
If possible, always try and get your requirements from the business analyst or product owner (if they're the requesting the change or providing the requirements).
You can ask the developers as a last resort... but take what they say with a pinch of salt and challenge them (always ask 'why') if the changes don't make sense to you.
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Ask your team, maybe during the Daily Standup? Saying your impeded by lack of requirements details. The team can now decide whom is the handiest to assist you. Hopefully the Product Owner is at the Daily Standup and can help you, but at least the Team coach (e.g. Scrum Master like person) can try to support you to resolve the issue.
I would expect the whole team to be aware and aligned of what they are currently focused on, including the acceptance criteria. Sounds like you are not part of the team, or not working together closely enough.
Also the Agile Testing Manifesto suggests:
We value testing throughout over testing at the end.
They suggest testing is an activity, instead of a phase or handover.
You could be working on the same details as the developers have in parallel.
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Whatever you do, don't create a situation where developers are inhibited from making small improvements because the process for establishing requirements is too heavyweight, or because input from developers is undervalued. That's especially the case if developers have a good level of contact with users. Product owners sometimes are too immersed in high level business strategy issues to recognise that what users really need are little tactical improvements; if developers talk a lot to users they may have their ears closer to the ground.
add a comment |
Some interpretations of the agile process have only the three roles: product owner, developer, and scrum master. That leaves the QA as developers with a particular skill set. So they can ask their fellow developers at any time, and they can also ask for clarification from the POs at any time (but ideally during refinements).
If in any way possible, clarifications should be requested before the sprint planning since clarifications should go into the acceptance criteria.
Even if QA are separate from the developers, as in your case, they are IT professionals with a distinctive view on the requirements and acceptance criteria, and they should always check acceptance criteria for testability before the sprint starts -- a criteria that cannot be tested may be a bad criteria.
Summarized, QA should be present while developers talk to POs, they are entitled to have an opinion on requirements from their own specific part of the team workload, and also in a general way as part of the team effort. Doing that would change the nature of QA, however. They would no longer check on the developers' work for the stakeholders, instead they would with the developers in fulfilling the acceptance criteria of the POs.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "244"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Shubham Takode is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsqa.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38200%2fshould-qa-ask-requirements-to-developers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. Requirements should be originated from a single point. Your developers might misunderstand something so that you'll be testing not what your stakeholders require but what your developers implemented (effect of a broken phone).
Asking your product owner will let you catch the gaps between what the business expects vs what your team actually implemented.
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
add a comment |
No. Requirements should be originated from a single point. Your developers might misunderstand something so that you'll be testing not what your stakeholders require but what your developers implemented (effect of a broken phone).
Asking your product owner will let you catch the gaps between what the business expects vs what your team actually implemented.
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
add a comment |
No. Requirements should be originated from a single point. Your developers might misunderstand something so that you'll be testing not what your stakeholders require but what your developers implemented (effect of a broken phone).
Asking your product owner will let you catch the gaps between what the business expects vs what your team actually implemented.
No. Requirements should be originated from a single point. Your developers might misunderstand something so that you'll be testing not what your stakeholders require but what your developers implemented (effect of a broken phone).
Asking your product owner will let you catch the gaps between what the business expects vs what your team actually implemented.
answered 14 hours ago
Alexey R.Alexey R.
7,6121932
7,6121932
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
1
1
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
I agree that there should be a single source of truth, i.e. a product owner, but it may make sense to ask developers about requirements in addition to asking the product owner. If they do not match that might be helpful to identify misunderstanding earlier (if the requirements have not been implemented yet) or focus tests in this particular area (otherwise).
– dzieciou
14 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
What if the product owner is not aligned with the current state of the application, and the team made a conflicting decision, because good reasons? Probably you should consult both the developers and the product owner.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
Yes, but consulting does not mean asking for requirements. Asking both devs and PO means just a doublework. There could be other roles in the team, so in this logic adding new role would add one more step to negotiate the requirements. If the product owner is not aligned with the current state then there are serious issues with company processes. I'm not saying that QA may ask devs about the source of their vision of the final product. But this is rather the exceptional case. Obviously not the "ideal case" the OP's mentioning in their question.
– Alexey R.
12 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
I hate the word requirements, most often they are not required. The team should have enough details of how to implement a new behaviour. The team should understand how it delivers value to the users. The team should be able to explain this as well, or else the Product Owner is just another bottleneck. But maybe I have a controversial view on the Product Owner role. :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I wouldn't say it's "good practice" to ask the developers for requirements, as they'll have their own interpretation of them.
If possible, always try and get your requirements from the business analyst or product owner (if they're the requesting the change or providing the requirements).
You can ask the developers as a last resort... but take what they say with a pinch of salt and challenge them (always ask 'why') if the changes don't make sense to you.
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I wouldn't say it's "good practice" to ask the developers for requirements, as they'll have their own interpretation of them.
If possible, always try and get your requirements from the business analyst or product owner (if they're the requesting the change or providing the requirements).
You can ask the developers as a last resort... but take what they say with a pinch of salt and challenge them (always ask 'why') if the changes don't make sense to you.
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I wouldn't say it's "good practice" to ask the developers for requirements, as they'll have their own interpretation of them.
If possible, always try and get your requirements from the business analyst or product owner (if they're the requesting the change or providing the requirements).
You can ask the developers as a last resort... but take what they say with a pinch of salt and challenge them (always ask 'why') if the changes don't make sense to you.
I wouldn't say it's "good practice" to ask the developers for requirements, as they'll have their own interpretation of them.
If possible, always try and get your requirements from the business analyst or product owner (if they're the requesting the change or providing the requirements).
You can ask the developers as a last resort... but take what they say with a pinch of salt and challenge them (always ask 'why') if the changes don't make sense to you.
answered 15 hours ago
trashpandatrashpanda
1,4741629
1,4741629
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
I disagree, Agile development teams should have the freedom to change requirements if it helps them to reach their goals easier, better or quicker. Now the code is the only truthful implementation of the requirements. So I would try to get the info from the full team, e.g. Developers, PO's and any other person in the team.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
14 hours ago
2
2
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
Developers should be the enablers for change, not the definers. That would also remove the need for BA's or PO's. If the requirement is for a background to be blue but they decide it's better in green... then what's the point in having requirements (or a BA or PO) in the first place?
– trashpanda
14 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
The PO is to maximize ROI and steer the what, not detailed requirements. I would rather have a development team that decides green is better then blindly following requirements. Read about the 41 shades of blue at Google. Therefore I dont see a need for BA's or other disciplines in Agile teams, although having expertise might make the full team stronger, silos wont. Read: theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/…
– Niels van Reijmersdal
13 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
You've linked to an article where the Head of Product (the product owner) changed the logo's colour requirements which subsequently made Google $200m... but what if the development team, upon being given the requirements, decided that green would be better? or pink? or black? Who would OP get the actual requirements from? How could OP pass the test if it's not what the product owner or BA asked for?
– trashpanda
12 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
I think you misread the article, the design lead quit after the team found a better color based on data in A/B tests. "As a result we learned that a slightly purpler shade of blue was more conducive to clicking than a slightly greener shade of blue, and gee whizz, we made a decision" The development team picked a different color, than the designer suggested. Also other articles about this topic say Google would have lost millions if they picked the designers shade of blue.
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Ask your team, maybe during the Daily Standup? Saying your impeded by lack of requirements details. The team can now decide whom is the handiest to assist you. Hopefully the Product Owner is at the Daily Standup and can help you, but at least the Team coach (e.g. Scrum Master like person) can try to support you to resolve the issue.
I would expect the whole team to be aware and aligned of what they are currently focused on, including the acceptance criteria. Sounds like you are not part of the team, or not working together closely enough.
Also the Agile Testing Manifesto suggests:
We value testing throughout over testing at the end.
They suggest testing is an activity, instead of a phase or handover.
You could be working on the same details as the developers have in parallel.
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Ask your team, maybe during the Daily Standup? Saying your impeded by lack of requirements details. The team can now decide whom is the handiest to assist you. Hopefully the Product Owner is at the Daily Standup and can help you, but at least the Team coach (e.g. Scrum Master like person) can try to support you to resolve the issue.
I would expect the whole team to be aware and aligned of what they are currently focused on, including the acceptance criteria. Sounds like you are not part of the team, or not working together closely enough.
Also the Agile Testing Manifesto suggests:
We value testing throughout over testing at the end.
They suggest testing is an activity, instead of a phase or handover.
You could be working on the same details as the developers have in parallel.
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Ask your team, maybe during the Daily Standup? Saying your impeded by lack of requirements details. The team can now decide whom is the handiest to assist you. Hopefully the Product Owner is at the Daily Standup and can help you, but at least the Team coach (e.g. Scrum Master like person) can try to support you to resolve the issue.
I would expect the whole team to be aware and aligned of what they are currently focused on, including the acceptance criteria. Sounds like you are not part of the team, or not working together closely enough.
Also the Agile Testing Manifesto suggests:
We value testing throughout over testing at the end.
They suggest testing is an activity, instead of a phase or handover.
You could be working on the same details as the developers have in parallel.
Ask your team, maybe during the Daily Standup? Saying your impeded by lack of requirements details. The team can now decide whom is the handiest to assist you. Hopefully the Product Owner is at the Daily Standup and can help you, but at least the Team coach (e.g. Scrum Master like person) can try to support you to resolve the issue.
I would expect the whole team to be aware and aligned of what they are currently focused on, including the acceptance criteria. Sounds like you are not part of the team, or not working together closely enough.
Also the Agile Testing Manifesto suggests:
We value testing throughout over testing at the end.
They suggest testing is an activity, instead of a phase or handover.
You could be working on the same details as the developers have in parallel.
answered 14 hours ago
Niels van ReijmersdalNiels van Reijmersdal
20.8k23071
20.8k23071
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
Thanks this is exactly what I think. Also our product owner never participates in daily stand-up :(
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago
1
1
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@ShubhamTakode That's an important detail to add to the question. But it probably means there is no answer in Agile methodology because you're not really doing Agile.
– TKK
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK Agile does not mean the PO has to be at the standup, but a lot of teams showed it has value. We could argue requirements are also not very Agile. The it is not really Agile comments do not really help, better suggest inspect and adapt :)
– Niels van Reijmersdal
10 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
@TKK I'm not the type to religiously do things by the book. I'd agree that the "not really Agile" comments wouldn't be constructive, except that the OP specifically asked for an answer within the Agile paradigm. There isn't one.
– TKK
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Whatever you do, don't create a situation where developers are inhibited from making small improvements because the process for establishing requirements is too heavyweight, or because input from developers is undervalued. That's especially the case if developers have a good level of contact with users. Product owners sometimes are too immersed in high level business strategy issues to recognise that what users really need are little tactical improvements; if developers talk a lot to users they may have their ears closer to the ground.
add a comment |
Whatever you do, don't create a situation where developers are inhibited from making small improvements because the process for establishing requirements is too heavyweight, or because input from developers is undervalued. That's especially the case if developers have a good level of contact with users. Product owners sometimes are too immersed in high level business strategy issues to recognise that what users really need are little tactical improvements; if developers talk a lot to users they may have their ears closer to the ground.
add a comment |
Whatever you do, don't create a situation where developers are inhibited from making small improvements because the process for establishing requirements is too heavyweight, or because input from developers is undervalued. That's especially the case if developers have a good level of contact with users. Product owners sometimes are too immersed in high level business strategy issues to recognise that what users really need are little tactical improvements; if developers talk a lot to users they may have their ears closer to the ground.
Whatever you do, don't create a situation where developers are inhibited from making small improvements because the process for establishing requirements is too heavyweight, or because input from developers is undervalued. That's especially the case if developers have a good level of contact with users. Product owners sometimes are too immersed in high level business strategy issues to recognise that what users really need are little tactical improvements; if developers talk a lot to users they may have their ears closer to the ground.
answered 7 hours ago
Michael KayMichael Kay
40613
40613
add a comment |
add a comment |
Some interpretations of the agile process have only the three roles: product owner, developer, and scrum master. That leaves the QA as developers with a particular skill set. So they can ask their fellow developers at any time, and they can also ask for clarification from the POs at any time (but ideally during refinements).
If in any way possible, clarifications should be requested before the sprint planning since clarifications should go into the acceptance criteria.
Even if QA are separate from the developers, as in your case, they are IT professionals with a distinctive view on the requirements and acceptance criteria, and they should always check acceptance criteria for testability before the sprint starts -- a criteria that cannot be tested may be a bad criteria.
Summarized, QA should be present while developers talk to POs, they are entitled to have an opinion on requirements from their own specific part of the team workload, and also in a general way as part of the team effort. Doing that would change the nature of QA, however. They would no longer check on the developers' work for the stakeholders, instead they would with the developers in fulfilling the acceptance criteria of the POs.
add a comment |
Some interpretations of the agile process have only the three roles: product owner, developer, and scrum master. That leaves the QA as developers with a particular skill set. So they can ask their fellow developers at any time, and they can also ask for clarification from the POs at any time (but ideally during refinements).
If in any way possible, clarifications should be requested before the sprint planning since clarifications should go into the acceptance criteria.
Even if QA are separate from the developers, as in your case, they are IT professionals with a distinctive view on the requirements and acceptance criteria, and they should always check acceptance criteria for testability before the sprint starts -- a criteria that cannot be tested may be a bad criteria.
Summarized, QA should be present while developers talk to POs, they are entitled to have an opinion on requirements from their own specific part of the team workload, and also in a general way as part of the team effort. Doing that would change the nature of QA, however. They would no longer check on the developers' work for the stakeholders, instead they would with the developers in fulfilling the acceptance criteria of the POs.
add a comment |
Some interpretations of the agile process have only the three roles: product owner, developer, and scrum master. That leaves the QA as developers with a particular skill set. So they can ask their fellow developers at any time, and they can also ask for clarification from the POs at any time (but ideally during refinements).
If in any way possible, clarifications should be requested before the sprint planning since clarifications should go into the acceptance criteria.
Even if QA are separate from the developers, as in your case, they are IT professionals with a distinctive view on the requirements and acceptance criteria, and they should always check acceptance criteria for testability before the sprint starts -- a criteria that cannot be tested may be a bad criteria.
Summarized, QA should be present while developers talk to POs, they are entitled to have an opinion on requirements from their own specific part of the team workload, and also in a general way as part of the team effort. Doing that would change the nature of QA, however. They would no longer check on the developers' work for the stakeholders, instead they would with the developers in fulfilling the acceptance criteria of the POs.
Some interpretations of the agile process have only the three roles: product owner, developer, and scrum master. That leaves the QA as developers with a particular skill set. So they can ask their fellow developers at any time, and they can also ask for clarification from the POs at any time (but ideally during refinements).
If in any way possible, clarifications should be requested before the sprint planning since clarifications should go into the acceptance criteria.
Even if QA are separate from the developers, as in your case, they are IT professionals with a distinctive view on the requirements and acceptance criteria, and they should always check acceptance criteria for testability before the sprint starts -- a criteria that cannot be tested may be a bad criteria.
Summarized, QA should be present while developers talk to POs, they are entitled to have an opinion on requirements from their own specific part of the team workload, and also in a general way as part of the team effort. Doing that would change the nature of QA, however. They would no longer check on the developers' work for the stakeholders, instead they would with the developers in fulfilling the acceptance criteria of the POs.
answered 5 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
27614
27614
add a comment |
add a comment |
Shubham Takode is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shubham Takode is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shubham Takode is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Shubham Takode is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Software Quality Assurance & Testing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsqa.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38200%2fshould-qa-ask-requirements-to-developers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
How does your agile environment look like? It sounds like the testers are not part of the team....?
– Ray Oei
15 hours ago
Teams works independently.
– Shubham Takode
14 hours ago