Why do some organizations deliver high-quality software consistently while others struggle? The answer lies in the Quality Triad—a set of interrelated components that fundamentally drive quality. Few concepts in quality management are universal, but I believe this triad is one of them.
In my previous post, Defining Quality in Software: A New Perspective, I defined quality as meeting customer expectations reliably. Despite its simple definition, making it actionable demands more. Here, we’ll explore the triad’s three key factors: Culture, Design, and Technology.
As noted in that post, quality discussions often fixate on the “how”—typically technology alone. Technology matters, but it’s just one leg of the triad. The others—Organizational Culture and Design—are equally vital, or you’ll paddle against strong counter currents.
Defining the Quality Triad
- Culture: The practiced values of your organization, not just the stated ones. It’s the foundation: if quality isn’t culturally valued, counter currents will erode every effort. Culture shapes conscious and unconscious decisions at all levels.
- Design: How teams are structured, incentivized, and interact. Tightly linked to culture and technology, design often scales with organizational size—what I call a “growing pain.” It determines responsibilities, collaboration, and alignment.
- Technology: The usual focus—development methodologies, tools, processes, and languages. It impacts quality heavily on the “how” (execution) rather than the “what” (outcomes).
These components are interwoven. Relationships aren’t always bidirectional, but they’re connected. Ignoring any one makes consistent quality nearly impossible. In my upcoming post on Quality Anti-patterns, I’ll dive into the pitfalls of imbalance.
A Real-World Example: Feature vs. Maintenance Teams
A classic design flaw arises when structure and rewards converge to encourage poor behaviors, like separating Feature and Maintenance teams. Feature teams are rewarded for shipping new features, while Maintenance teams handle bugs and technical debt.
Inevitably, Feature teams prioritize speed over sustainability, creating counter currents:
- Near-term: Unreliable features shipped to users.
- Long-term: Accumulating technical debt, destabilizing the codebase, and hindering future innovation.
Is this model doomed? Not necessarily—but it demands awareness and mitigation. Weigh the costs: align incentives with shared metrics, or merge into cross-functional teams. Decide if the benefits justify the effort.
This example shows the triad’s influence beyond technology. My goal? Encourage you to look wider for quality impacts.
Call to Action
Ready to apply the Quality Triad? Assess your organization today: Rate Culture, Design, and Technology on a 1-10 scale for quality. Identify one counter current and brainstorm a fix.