When High Quality Is Not Needed: Understanding Software Quality Requirements and Team Health

Although it may sound alarming, most products do not require high quality; they only need quality that is "good enough," and the definition of "good enough" varies depending on the software's quality requirements.

Software quality requirements are part of overall software requirements and are described in the standard GB/T 25000.10, which includes internal, external, and usage quality criteria to satisfy developers, maintainers, requestors, and end‑users.

In simple terms, software quality is whether the product meets the evaluators' standards. To clarify quality needs, we must answer four questions: who evaluates quality (stakeholders), which aspects are evaluated (dimensions), what standards are used (methods or metrics), and what factors influence the evaluation.

Before analyzing investment strategies, it is essential to clarify quality requirements and find the "standard answer" for the current context. Clear understanding enables targeted investment and helps managers move from blind, costly spending to efficient responses that satisfy both managers and development teams.

If stakeholder expectations are low, communication can align expectations; if expectations are unclear, educating stakeholders becomes an opportunity to align understanding and needs.

When a team is in poor condition—such as during a new team’s formation, heavy influx of newcomers, key role changes, overly optimistic ROI expectations, or internal conflicts—additional quality‑related investments (e.g., extensive testing) often yield poor results because the team's health limits output quality. In such cases, improving team health should precede further quality investments.

Team health checks (Team Healthy Check) can help assess and improve the team's overall condition. Key questions include: what has the team done well recently, how can work methods be improved, and what should be the focus for the next period.

Improving team health typically also improves quality. When quality is already sufficient and the team operates smoothly, maintaining the current balance without additional investment is advisable.

Most teams are not in an ideal state; they face demanding tasks, limited resources, and tight timelines. Quality practitioners must carefully consider the timing and focus of investments, ensuring they address the right quality needs rather than merely increasing spending.

Clarifying quality requirements and aligning them with stakeholder expectations is crucial to avoid misguided investments and to maximize the impact of limited resources.