|
|
|||||
|
what happens if we type these here |
|||||
|
Doing Quality Work Quality is overrated as a marketplace distinctive. A/E firms routinely tout their "quality work" as a key attribute separating them from the competition. But client research indicates that the distinction is much less evident to clients. They expect quality work, not as a bonus, but as the norm. For this reason, poor quality is much more likely to distinguish your firm from competitors than good quality. I'm convinced that superior service is the best opportunity for differentiation in our business. Where does quality fit in? You can't have great service with inferior quality. That's because service is defined by the client's overall experience working with your firm. Poor quality impairs that experience, and thus the client's perception of the level of service received. So what defines quality? The answer is not as simple as many technical professionals assume. Indeed, the definition of quality is largely in the eye of the beholder. This makes it all the more important to avoid making assumptions about how the client defines quality. There really isn't an overall objective standard of quality out there. It requires meeting subjective client expectations. That means you need to identify those expectations up front. Some other points to consider:
The best quality assurance process prevents mistakes rather than merely catching them in the final review. This establishes expectations and secures buy-in early. Some key elements of such a preemptive quality process are:
u Clarify client
goals and expectations.
u Carefully plan project execution. Not just a list of tasks, but how the work will be resourced, coordinated, performed, and delivered. A good project management plan defines the best approach to meeting client needs, providing great service, and maximizing efficiency and deliverable quality.
u Define
deliverable content up front in detail.
u Religiously stick
to internal milestones.
One of the most common quality problems is the failure to adhere to
internal deadlines.
u Clearly define
internal review roles.
Reviewers should have distinct roles, avoiding unnecessary duplication or,
worse still, gaps in the review process. As alluded to above, it's best
to get reviewers involved early in defining expectations and helping
prevent errors or misunderstandings. u Diligently check work products throughout. Third-party reviews are critically important, but every project contributor should be expected to check his or her own work before it is passed on--even in draft form. Quality assurance should never be viewed as primarily the responsibility of reviewers; it is shared by all. Copyright © 2009, The Business Edge, all rights reserved
|
|||||
|
Home | Experience | Articles | Links | Contact |
|||||