Like the Vulcan philosopher said, "Our diversity is our strength." The more points of view represented in the check, more defects are found. Ideally, use as plenty of approaches as you need or, realistically, much as you can afford.I advocate putting testers in close communication with developers, with few barriers as possible, but I do not defend that document to them all the same manager. People with the same leader finally come to have the same opinion. The dancers have their dance teacher, the musicians have their driver. Each group has its own point of view, and everyone needs someone to represent that view. They all have the same aim: an excellent production.Two way to cultivate nice relations between developers and testers is to minimize the arguments used in subjective validation. Been used for measurement and reporting of problems, not opinion. Another way to cultivate nice relations in any team is interested in what everyone is doing, as the dance teacher to be aware of each person. The aim is not to check on them, but to properly appreciate the extent of their work and merit of their accomplishments.A management approach that builds a strong team working together to transfer knowledge to do the job is far preferable to two that allows the isolation of the testers. Testers isolation may be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task they must perform.If the development work is a tiny taste of RAD / Agile, up and down the check with an integrator for coordination of inter-communication is probably the best approach. The best successes I have seen that uses a short bulleted style to the design documents during the development stages. When the product nears completion, the user guide becomes the vehicle used to document the design. In projects requiring high reliability and safety-critical in the bottom-up approach is used, it is common to see more formal documentation carrying more communication between groups. The integrative role in a bottom-up work is traditionally held by an engineer. Whatever the approach, the inventory of evidence must still be built for the project.Plan the best approach for the process. If the building blocks or units are nice, top-down testing is the most efficient way to conduct the tests. If the quality of the units is uncertain, or if they are high reliability, safety critical considerations, a bottom-up approach is generally thought about best practice. For example, a bottom-up approach may be necessary when dealing with a significant amount of new (untrusted) objects or processes. Very all the examples in this book uses a top-down approach.