In this article I will explore the acronym QA, and why I think we should do away with it for good.

1. QI, not QA
In this article I will explore the acronym QA, and why I think we should do away
with it for good.
Let us begin our journey with looking at what QA actually stands for, and how it
is usually interpreted.
“Quality assurance (QA) is a way of preventing mistakes or defects in
manufactured products and avoiding problems when delivering solutions or
services to customers.” [1]
This is how QA has been perceived for a long time, and the QA organization has
been responsible for making sure that no critical problems are delivered to
customers. A gatekeeper of quality. We know now that this is absurd in so many
ways. Let’s look at why:
 Testers cannot assure quality since they are not actually fixing the bugs
 Testers are not owning or monitoring the development work process
 Testers do not own quality – the development team does
Testers cannot assure quality directly in any way. So why is a Quality Assurance
organization, which consists mainly of testers, called Quality Assurance? The
answer is of course, according to me, that it shouldn’t.
But I was far from the first to realize this, and that is why some companies have
started using “Quality Assistance” instead. Spotify, King and Atlassian are three
examples. [2] [3] [6]
However I still think this is misleading. Especially if someone with test
competence is actually part of the development team. Then they are not assisting
anyone – they are just doing it, as part of a team. So what is it that they are
actually doing? To understand this I would like to find a connection between
quality and testing, and I think the following pictures shows it really well [4]:

2. The connection is information. Testing provides information about value and
risk, and quality is value perceived at some point in time by some person that
matters. [4]
There is someone else who has a similar informative role, namely Business
Intelligence. Let’s look at how BI is defined:
"a set of techniques and tools for the acquisition and transformation of raw data
into meaningful and useful information for business analysis purposes"
Now we take that definition, and replace business with quality:
"a set of techniques and tools for the acquisition and transformation of raw data
into meaningful and useful information for quality analysis purposes"
This is basically what I think QA should stand for, and that is why I think it
should be renamed QI, or Quality Intelligence.
We transform all the raw data that the product is, into meaningful and useful
information for the purpose of analyzing quality, and we do it mainly through
testing.
But wait! Aren’t we also supposed to coach the team and help them become
more aware of quality, influence the processes to build in quality from the start,
and so on? Absolutely. As part of the development team, that is definitely
something that someone with a high level of test competence should do, just like
everyone that is part of the development or production team (such as BI) should
contribute with their different competencies, but according to me this is not
something that should play a factor when we decide if we want to call it QA or QI,
because everyone is assisting each other.

3. References
[1] Quality Assurance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance
[2] Quality Assurance vs. Quality Assistance
https://www.atlassian.com/inside-atlassian/quality-assurance-vs-quality-
assistance
[3] Quality Assistance @ Spotify
https://twitter.com/marcusoftnet/status/270544393021308928
[4] A model of the relationship between Quality, Value, Testing and Risks
https://richrtesting.com/2016/10/26/a-model-of-the-relationship-between-
quality-value-testing-and-risks/
[5] Business Intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_intelligence
[6] What does QA stand for at King
https://techblog.king.com/what-does-qa-stand-for-at-king/