Do We Still Need Quality Management in an Agile World?
A Fresh Perspective
Editor's note: This article was originally published in 2018. I'm revisiting it today because the tension between agile methodologies and traditional quality management remains relevant, perhaps even more so in our increasingly digital-first world.
Agile delivery has become ubiquitous. Nearly every organization has adopted some form of agile methodology in their project delivery, embracing its evolutionary and collaborative nature. Quality is supposedly 'built-in' when using agile methodologies, with their emphasis on early testing and continuous customer feedback. This raises an important question: what happens to traditional quality management approaches, with their dedicated roles, processes, and artifacts?
The Many Forms of Quality
Let's examine some key distinctions in quality management that remain relevant to agile delivery:
Project Quality vs. Product Quality
While these two aspects often correlate – well-run projects typically deliver better products – the relationship isn't guaranteed. We've all seen chaotic projects that somehow produced decent outcomes and perfectly managed projects that delivered subpar results. In agile contexts, measuring project quality requires different metrics than traditional compliance-focused approaches.
Process Compliance vs. Specification Compliance
Traditional quality management often centers on creating and monitoring adherence to an upfront quality plan. The assumption is that following procedures (peer reviews, sign-offs, etc.) will ensure product quality. In reality, quality assurance often merely proves plan compliance rather than actual quality achievement.
Agile replaces formal quality processes with 'built-in' quality, assuming the methodology itself produces better outcomes. However, this only works when agile is implemented effectively – requiring the right product owner, collaboration techniques, and team dynamics.
Specification Compliance vs. Fitness for Purpose
Even products that fully comply with specifications may not meet actual needs. This misalignment can stem from inadequate stakeholder involvement, poor requirement documentation, or changing contexts during development. Agile's strength lies in addressing these issues through closer collaboration and faster delivery cycles.
Fitness for Purpose vs. 'General Awesomeness'
Quality in project management typically means fitness for purpose—no more or no less than what was intended. However, perceived quality often influences stakeholder satisfaction beyond mere functionality. In agile environments, where formal traceability artifacts may be minimal, perceived quality becomes increasingly crucial for success.
Is Agile About Quality or Speed?
While agile marketing often emphasizes time-to-market benefits, quality considerations drive widespread adoption across industries. The Agile Manifesto's primary principle remains customer satisfaction. However, real-world pressures often create tension between speed and quality.
Teams frequently face pressure to compromise quality for immediate delivery. But as Bob Galen noted, "Agile isn't a 'speed play' it's a 'quality' play that might be able to go fast (under the right circumstances)." Quality shortcuts ultimately slow delivery through inevitable rework.
Achieving 'Built-in' Quality
Today's agile quality assurance requires:
Integration of traditional quality methods within agile frameworks through practices like Test-Driven Development, automated testing, pair programming, and refined acceptance criteria
Strong product ownership with a comprehensive understanding of both business outcomes and technical requirements
Team-wide alignment on project purpose and value
Looking Forward
The fundamental tension between agile methodologies and traditional quality management persists. While agile practices have evolved, the need for thoughtful quality processes remains. The key is to adapt quality management principles to agile contexts rather than abandon them entirely.
Quality still doesn't happen automatically—it requires deliberate effort throughout the delivery lifecycle. As we move forward, the challenge remains: How do we assess project quality in agile environments beyond simple process compliance?
What are your thoughts on quality management in agile environments? How has your organization balanced these competing demands? Share your experiences in the comments below.
This article was initially published in 2018 and has been updated to reflect current perspectives and practices in agile delivery.