These are “Modernist” approaches, which is important to distinguish from “modern”
If you do not have people specializing in a task, if you divide their attention among exercised skills, you will reduce their efficacy across the entire set of their responsibilities. However, you will save staffing costs and continue to crush the souls of your employees under the weight of more and more hats, and since most people don’t trust software anyway, because of the bugs introduced by this status quo approach to testing, you’re unlikely to lose market share.
So the Modernist approach, which devalues staff and customers alike, robbing the former of their self actualization and the latter of their time, money and patience, is highly profitable.
If you do not have people specializing in a task, if you divide their attention among exercised skills, you will reduce their efficacy across the entire set of their responsibilities. However, you will save staffing costs and continue to crush the souls of your employees under the weight of more and more hats, and since most people don’t trust software anyway, because of the bugs introduced by this status quo approach to testing, you’re unlikely to lose market share.
So the Modernist approach, which devalues staff and customers alike, robbing the former of their self actualization and the latter of their time, money and patience, is highly profitable.
But also symptomatic of a bankrupt culture.