QA has fair amount of clarity-expectation-acceptance wrt to their role/authority; These three areas are supported by either regulations - industry practices...etc.,
I am working with QA in technical area; here it gets little tricky in one of the above three areas.
Some one accepts the QA role to the extent of "verification of protocol/results" alone; Other feel that it must take care of "completeness";
But then how do we make a difference if we do not contribute to "planning/adequacy" of protocols. AND the point is R&D keeps cutting corners (in the name of meeting timelines, etc.,) and does not always ends up having positive results. (QA gets caught up in the act for not having a robust process!!!)
thank you for you thoughts.
I am working with QA in technical area; here it gets little tricky in one of the above three areas.
Some one accepts the QA role to the extent of "verification of protocol/results" alone; Other feel that it must take care of "completeness";
But then how do we make a difference if we do not contribute to "planning/adequacy" of protocols. AND the point is R&D keeps cutting corners (in the name of meeting timelines, etc.,) and does not always ends up having positive results. (QA gets caught up in the act for not having a robust process!!!)
thank you for you thoughts.