Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Having read a book I found a note that verification and validation can be both quality assurance and quality control. I cannot see how it can be quality assurance because both just provide evidence whether or not the product meets its use, requirements etc., which is quality control.
IMHO V&V cannot assure quality, they only asnwers the question "does it work?", "is it correct?.

share|improve this question

Especially for software the terms QA and QC usually exhibit some sort of overlap. Maybe wikipedia on QC could help:

... Quality control emphasizes testing of products to uncover defects and reporting to management who make the decision to allow or deny product release, whereas quality assurance attempts to improve and stabilize production (and associated processes) to avoid, or at least minimize, issues which led to the defect(s) in the first place ...

Again, especially for software where you are (almost*) guaranteed to have verbatim copies, V&V indeed does what you need for both QA and QC, since once you have assured, that product and is fit for its intended purpose and behaves to the specifications, you know that all of the copies will too.

*) there is of course the possibility of random bit flops on copying for whatever reasons, but these can usually be detected (when an appropriate process is in place).

share|improve this answer

You cannot see how V&V can be QA activity?

How about a QA process audit? Lets say a company has a mandatory process step: "after the requirements spec is completed, the spec must be peer reviewed"

How can one VERIFY that people in your organsiation are actually performing this peer reviewing? For this you have QA audit process in place: every week a QA engineer checks if finalized requirements specs contains a "reviewed" part in the revision table + the docx contains review comments of the reviewer.

To me the peer review itself is a QC AND a verification activity, but the meta-activity of checking that the peer reviewing is actually performed is a QA AND verification activity.

Validation activity for QA: How about actually executing a process defined by QA to VALIDATE its feasibility.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.