this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
244 points (96.2% liked)
Not The Onion
12368 readers
316 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would argue that QA saves you money. In that, it detects faulty products and in doing so limit liability.
I agree whole heartedly, the “it doesn’t make money” argument is common and the fight to do proper QA is rarely won.
The problem is QA vs QC. Quality control means you actually have to do stuff. Quality assurance just means "I assure you, the quality is good ;)"
If you don't have a QA you run the risk of having to rebuild the entire bar from scratch
QC detects problems. QA predicts, mitigates, and resolves problems. QA is the first to go when it's cheaper to scrap problems rather than make perfect product. QC goes when companies can outsource it to supplier-reported inspections and then leave it to the customer to act as final inspection. The Amazon method that everyone has to follow if they want to stay competitive