Reddit mentions: The best quality control books

I want to transition from Engineering Technician to Test Engineer. I would like comments or advice on how to go about this based on the situation I describe below. Thanks!


I'm an engineering technician at a power electronics startup. I did not graduate, but I completed about 5/8ths of a computer engineering degree before dropping out for financial reasons. I spend most of my time developing and running automated tests for verification and validation of electronics hardware we are developing. I, with some input and direction from my boss, have been building up a plan for a year or multi-year project to significantly improve our V&V workflow. This project would include:

1. Developing new rules, guidelines, and procedures for setting up and executing test runs.
   
2. Defining the test cases that make up the test runs for all products we currently have and any new ones created during this process.
   
3. Taking the defined test runs for each product, design a hardware apparatus to automate as many of the test cases for a product as possible.
   
4. Write software to execute these test cases. This software will be able to pull test configurations directly from our test hosting solution, or be configured by the user.
   
5. Write the software interface to allow the tester to pull data from the test hosting and to post data back to it.
   
   ​
   
   There is a lot more to it, but this is as much as I could simplify it.
   
   ​
   
   I see the need at work for a full time Test Engineer. We do not have one. The responsibilities for setting up the test cases and ensuring testing is going smoothly falls on the lead engineer for that specific product. Their time could be better spent improving the product. I think I have the ability to do this job. I recently purchased Verification, Validation, and Testing of Engineered Systems as a way to understand how this system I want to design should look. I plan to spend work time and personal time studying and working on this project to further my career.
   
   
   Do you have any resources or advice on this topic you would like to share?
   
   Is this goal too ambitious (will I be shot down because this sort of promotion is unheard of)?
   
   Should I state my desire to be promoted to this position soon (once I have a value proposal/presentation prepared)?
   
   Or should I wait several months to ask for the promotion, until I have already done some of this work (demonstrating my capability and value)?

There does seem to be a pervasive mindset that (a) taking time to plan is useless (at least anything beyond a vague 'yeah, we know what this means; good enough' ; rarely an attempt to really get rigorous specifications), (b) documenting a system is useless (like there will never be new people to the system, or they should just know by the magic of their rockstar power how everything is intended to work), (c) QA is useless (developers should test their own code, so why do we need QA?)

It seems to come from having seen all of these things done badly and so going to the conclusion that therefore they shouldn't be done.

Like, I get that six months of detailed planning before ever trying to build anything is probably not helpful. But I also think it's useful to take time to slowly walk through various edge cases and really try to hammer out the details and then make something concrete to represent the understanding of what should be done before trying to implement.

And documentation can get stale, or can be pointless. So all the more important to make it a continuous priority to keep fresh and review (like, for instance, developers shouldn't need to be locked into a specific area; have them go take a break and review documentation and code in another section; cross-training is great as well as additional eyes!).

QA, to me, is the most important aspect of software. And yet it's treated like the most unimportant and unnecessary.

To some extent, these things are semantic points and just different perspectives on the same things: in a discussion with my second-line supervisor, we agreed on many things but he simply didn't like the terminology of QA nor the idea of an external group dedicated to testing (!).

To me, quality goes beyond any business logic to a fundamental aesthetic preference beyond even engineering and maintenance practicality. But for any business that intends to still be operating two years down the line, the overall SV attitude that "we're changing so fast we won't need to ever maintain any of this code! test your own code; we don't need QA!" is just so immature.

Which is an ironic critique since I'm the prodigal son who wandered away from the industry with little experience and was barely able to get back in, while I'm arguing against people in senior roles in some cases (one that comes to mind is a CTO of one of the many well-known SV start-ups I was interviewing with was totally gung-ho about self-documenting code and utterly dismissive of the need for any documentation; they were clearly as unimpressed by me as I was by them given the lack of offer).

But I really feel like it would be far more enjoyable (at least to my taste) as well as far more effective to have a strong culture and priority around quality rather than this minimum viable product and ignore the bugs mentality.

I know my critique is somewhat exaggerated and there's a lot of nuance to these things, but this type of thing is exactly why I put so little faith into things like full self-driving being achieved in the near-term. It frankly amazes me that any software works given how it gets built.

There's some garbled saying that comes to mind about if we built bridges the way we build software there'd be a lot more collapses....

Anyhow, I like thinking and talking about this stuff, but I don't expect to ever have the chance to put it into practice. I enjoy my leisure too much to devote decades of my life to someday having the opportunity to prove that "Quality is Free" in software too (that management book from 1980 by a guy working on quality in manufacturing is the most important single thing I would recommend anyone in software to read).

Hi skunk,

Since everyone is remaining quiet I might as well give this a shot. I'm from a technical background but currently studying PM in my spare time in the hope that I can progress in this direction within my industry.

PMP

It seems like the global standard is the PMP with PMI which requires:

> A secondary degree (high school diploma, associate’s degree, or the global equivalent) with at least five years of project management experience, with 7,500 hours leading and directing projects and 35 hours of project management education.

> OR

> A four-year degree (bachelor’s degree or the global equivalent) and at least three years of project management experience, with 4,500 hours leading and directing projects and 35 hours of project management education.

I'm currently studying towards this. I've taken recommendations from this subreddit (and /r/pmp) and bought:

• Rita Mulcahy's PMP Exam Prep, Eighth Edition
  
  and
  
  
• PMI's PMBOK, Fifth Edition
  
  In order to obtain the required 35 contact hours, I bought one of several cheap Groupons for $99. I'm not going to link the course because I don't necessarily recommend it - it should be easy enough to find and people have linked to these in previous posts. It doesn't really matter anyway because it's just so I can "tick that box", as I've learnt everything I need to know from the books.
  
  The exam however will have to be sat in person. I have yet to do this so can't give you any pointers.
  
  CAPM
  
  If you don't match the above criteria, you can always opt for the lower qualification of CAPM (also with PMI) and work your way up.
  For this I reccommend CAPM/PMP Project Management Certification, Third Edition and the previously mentioned online course.
  
  Please note that you can potentially pitch anything as a project in the right light, even washing the dishes. Aim high and try to get the hours for PMP if possible.
  
  PRINCE2 & SIX SIGMA
  
  What else? Well, if I'm successful with the PMP and still enjoy PM after the blood, sweat and tears, I'm looking at these two qualifications.
  
  I've already added a few books to my Amazon wishlist but have yet to seriously look into these with enough detail to commit.
  
  
• Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2
  
• PRINCE2 Study Guide
  
• PRINCE2 For Dummies
  
  I know that the exam for the PRINCE2 foundation level (and possibly practitioner level?) can be sat online with a webcam.
  
  
• Six Sigma for Dummies
  
• Six Sigma Workbook for Dummies
  
  Six Sigma I know very little about except that several colleagues have mentioned it and my industry takes it seriously. However, I don't believe you can do these Six Sigma "belts" online.
  
  Sorry for the serious wall of text but I just thought I'd share everything I know about PM accreditation. This isn't a comprehensive list but I'm planning on doing 90% online so I'm in a similar situation to yourself.
  
  I would be grateful for any feedback myself from experienced PMs on my plans going forward.

A reply you've made makes it sound like they don't yet have a lab. So you are setting up a lab? Fun times!

First, micro is a fraction (large time consuming fraction) of what you'll need to know. Chemical/analytical testing will make up another, say, 1/4. Someone has linked the ASBC methods. This is a great place to start. Brush up on GLP if it's been a while since you've practiced other science streams.


Specifically regarding lab start up, ASBC also has a guide for what you should be testing at different production volumes: http://www.asbcnet.org/membership/getstarted/Pages/growyourown.aspx

Take this as a minimum. More is better, but depending if they are kegging/bottling/whatever not all of it will be relevant.

Expect paperwork review and filing. Shouldn't be too much of a shock coming from a lab. It's not glamorous but it is what it is.

Are they also looking at QA? This will include things like verification, validation, calibration, preventative maintenance, FDA/other food authorities, food safety, cleaning review, auditing, SOP generation and update, training, labelling, acrobatics etc.

Sensory! Can you taste beer? Can you detect faults? Check you ego; you probably don't. But that's okay. Get a sensory training program up and running. This should include training and review of their beers as well as basic defect training using flavour standards. If you haven't accepted you know nothing; these at 1x threshold will get you there. There's also great resources on setting up blind/triangular/etc training on their site: http://www.aroxa.com/beer


Speaking of egos; you mentioned home brewing. We have all met home Brewers that like to tell us about how they know more than us about our jobs. Don't be that guy/gal. Yes it is helpful that you understand the basics and we know you like beer, but that's about as useful as it gets. It's unlikely you'll be writing recipes or making beer.


Some good reading;

https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Management-Essential-Planning-Breweries/dp/1938469151

https://www.amazon.com/Yeast-Practical-Fermentation-Brewing-Elements/dp/0937381969

To offer a different perspective, what made Japan's recovery so amazing is that they had something to offer most other industrialized countries didn't have at the time: quality. Japan has been the world's leader in quality standards ever since the 1950's.

After world war II, Japan was the first country to say "Quality over quantity". They implemented quality management as the basis of their new economy. To achieve this, they hired quality contemporary "guru's" (for lack of a better term). Willam Edwards Deming probably being the most well-known of them.

There have been books written about quality management (and tons of books about Deming alone), so I'm not going to focus on his philosophy here. The main reason for Japan's economic recovery is quality management however. When the entire world was still focusing on mass-production, they started focusing on quality production.

Eventually the new philosophy started to produce results. In the 1970's, people simply began to realize Japanese products were way better in quality, and Western producers realized there was a competitive gap, and Deming's work finally began to receive recognition in the 80's.

Deming's focus wasn't only on product quality, but also on quality management. Continuously upgrading/testing/innovating the product became the new standard.

Other quality leaders were Genuchi Taguchi, Walter Shewart, and Joseph Juran

Some links on quality management:

Main Wikipedia page

Quality Function Deployment

Toyota Production Systm

Kaizen

Books on Quality Management:

Gemba Kaizen

William Edwards Deming

Juran's Quality Control Handbook published in 1951, Japanese scientists liked his work and invited him to implement his system

To summarize, Solow's growth model might provide a basis for the Japanese economic recovery, but the decision to focus on quality for products instead of quantity was way more important. The West only started to catch up in response to that in the 1980's (e.g. Motorola's Six Sigma programme). Yes, the help of the US did give Japan the ability to improve their economy, but their huge economic growth and how well they used that aid was due to

Typically a control chart that plots subgroup averages (Xbar) will have an accompanying chart that plots a measure of within-subgroup dispersion, such as a R-chart or S-chart. There really isn't a "vs" here. Both are useful.

I'd recommend starting to read Donald Wheeler's materials:
https://www.spcpress.com/reading_room.php

I also recommend his book Understanding Statistical Process Control. It's in the 3rd edition, but if you are ok with not having the latest and greatest, it looks like you can get the 2nd edition used on amazon for 5 or 6 dollars. Hard to beat that.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Statistical-Process-Control-Chambers/dp/0945320132/

The RSpec Book is what I used when I first starting learning how to test. It's a great book that covers not just how to test plain ol' ruby, but also TDD/BDD methodology. The syntax is a little dated, but it's super easy to find and learn the new syntax. PDFs are also floating around online if you don't care to buy it (although it's definitely worth the money for a used copy IMO).

Have you grabbed the Quality Management book yet?

I'm just getting into the industry but from what I'm seeing it sounds like you are definitely doing awesome work!

Hi :)

Yes, you'll find Lean principles employed a lot more in a factory setting, because Lean is traditionally viewed as a manufacturing methodology, since it sprung from the Toyota Production System (TPM). However, many other sectors have begun to catch on in the last couple of decades, and you can find it almost anywhere you look now.

As you work in the IT department, might I suggest reading Lean IT, since it describes the Lean methodology in terms of IT.

I am quite passionate about Lean so no thanks are needed; if you have any questions just let me know!

I agree Yeast is a useful book and made me look for more resources. I've been planning to get to reading this but have not yet. May be of interest: Quality Management, Essential Planning for Breweries

These two are the most recommend for beginners

The Ruby Programming Language

Agile Web Development with Rails


More advanced topics:

Metaprogramming Ruby

The Rspec Book

My company uses RSpec. I was introduced using Chelimsky's The RSpec Book. It touches not only on RSpec but Cucumber and Behaviour Driven Development. It's a solid technical document and would probably serve you well!

Quality is Free

A quick google search turned up this: https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Management-Essential-Planning-Breweries/dp/1938469151#customerReviews

Is that the book you are referring to?

Here's a link to some course notes on the subject (from a former professor of mine). The main textbook reference is Montgomery, 6th ed., which could be found through Google. A more in depth textbook is Quesenberry.

If you go to page 228 of Montgomery, it notes the "theoretical" basis for control charts. I'm using them a lot in my current project (which may turn into a thesis for my PhD). I put theoretical in quotation marks because I'm also a little bit uneasy about them. For the intended purpose (e.g. a collection of statistics from identical processes with), they are exactly what they should be. Using them in any other context is not statistically sound, but seems to be done fairly often.

Basically, you have a collection of means that are assumed to be from the same process. Under the null hypothesis (Normal with mean mu_xbar and constant standard deviation sigma), approximately 95% of these means should be within the control limits (mu_xbar + 3*sigma_xbar).

Unfortunately, this amounts to a large amount of hypothesis tests, and multiple comparison/researcher degrees of freedom become a large issue (especially since the control limits are meant to be re-evaluated every time a point falls outside the control limits - i.e. is rejected by a hypothesis test).

They are, however, very practical. They provide a nice little heuristic approach to find something like outliers or points that should be investigated further. They can also be easily used and understood by researchers. IN a lot of situations they lack statistical rigor, but they work as practical methods.

Juran's Quality Handbook
http://www.amazon.com/Jurans-Quality-Handbook-Joseph-Juran/dp/007034003X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253578975&sr=8-1

Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Crisis-W-Edwards-Deming/dp/0262541157/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253578991&sr=8-1

Flawless specs don't exist. At best a spec is a representation of what someone thought they understood about a problem that could be solved by a software feature.


At worst, they are months or years old documents that misinterpreted the clients intent and didn't clearly state the intent of the spec writer either.


Conversation trumps all. Try talking to the product person and dev to better understand the problem you are working on and the expectations of everyone involved.

You might want to pick up a copy of Exploring Requirements, too.

This is a major part of why I'm currently unemployed. It turns out my standards are higher than that of most employers. Which sounds arrogant as hell, but when they have no standards... ;-(

I still believe that Quality is Free, and more than that, highly profitable. But there's so much disgusting shit that goes out. I would specifically mention a few examples but I don't really feel like having a comment which could be accused of being libelous. So...I'll just say that critical infrastructure from health care to defense is being neglected because of this asshattery and I wish I could believe that it would change anytime soon. Or ever.

>This to me is really bizarre, and why I term the piece mendacious: Asian Americans do talk about white Americans the way whites talk about black folks. This sort of thing was a clear subtext of Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Many (most?) Asian American kids who grew up with immigrant parents were barraged with assertions about the disreputable character of their “American” (white) friends, and how it was important to keep on the straight & narrow. Immigrants from Asia often perceive white Americans to be sexually obsessed, lazy, and prone to a general amorality and fixation on short term hedonic interests. These are polite ways to condense the sort of attitude many Asian immigrants have toward the white American mainstream, which they worry will absorb and corrupt their children. Dash must know this, as he probably had immigrant parents, or was friends with people from immigrant backgrounds. Most white Americans don’t know this, partly because most white Americans don’t have non-white friends. But anyone from an Asian American background would be aware of the stereotypes and perceptions.

And Amy Chua, if she indeed "subtexted" racist stereotypes about White people, she should be called out for it. But I suspect the "subtext" is rather more imaginary than the author let on.

and yes, some of us have racist mothers or grandmothers who engage in that sort of behavior.

Years ago, I remember reading a book by a famous Japanese engineering expert, Dr. Ishikawa.

http://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/kaoru-ishikawa/

his book, http://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/dp/0139524339, had a chapter on why he thought Asians were better in science and engineering.

It was pretty racist stuff in that chapter, and I had no problem point it out to my colleagues.

The point is, lots of smart people (especially of the older generation), harbor some racist ideas.

"Harboring" is OK, because you can keep thinking about it, and if enough evidence counter your ideas, you can still change your mind.

"Talking" racist shit in public is NOT OK, because you are hurting people with your own shit ideas.

"Subtexting"? Not sure where that one falls, not unless the author clarifies the definition of that word.