|
|
|||||
|
what happens if we type these here |
 |
||||
|
Managing
Project Quality It
has often been noted that the definition of quality is in the eye of the
beholder. This makes it all the more important to avoid making
assumptions about client expectations of quality. Meet with the client
at the outset of the project to mutually define quality expectations. The
following points are useful to keep in mind: u Meeting
requirements is the bare minimum.
Some quality experts, especially from the manufacturing sector, simply
define quality as “meeting requirements.” But in professional
services, satisfying the client’s stated requirements (scope, budget,
schedule) forms only part of the client’s perception of quality. It’s
the minimum expectation. u Service
strongly affects perceptions of quality.
Superb work product quality will go largely unnoticed by the client if the
working relationship is troubled. Quality is best seen as an essential
component of a great client experience, which is the definition of
superior service. It cannot stand on its own. u Quality
is ultimately defined by what the project accomplishes. It’s easy to focus on the quality of your work
products—drawings, specifications, studies, reports. But the true test
of work product quality is the results these yield in meeting client needs
and goals. Therefore your quality assurance processes should be
results-driven, not just product-driven. Preemptive
Quality Assurance The
best way to ensure project quality is to work within a firm-wide quality
assurance (QA) process. A QA process defines consistent expectations and
practices across the firm for building quality into everything you do. The
overall goal of quality assurance is to prevent, not correct errors,
which both improves quality and reduces costs. Too Much Rework It’s
estimated that 15-20% of project budgets in our industry is spent on
rework. Some will argue that much of this is beyond our control. True, but
we can make substantial inroads to curbing avoidable rework by applying
the principles of preemptive quality assurance. Consider the dramatic
savings that manufacturing firms achieved by reducing rework through Total
Quality Management practices. This brought a fundamental shift from
limiting quality control to inspection of finished products (the standard
in our industry) to proactively improving work processes and preventing
mistakes. According to the quality guru Phillip Crosby, the cost of errors
increases exponentially the later in the product delivery cycle that they
are discovered: A problem that costs $1 to prevent may cost $10 to
correct if caught internally, or $100 if discovered externally The
key to cost-effective project quality assurance is to help move away from
the traditional “end-of-the-production-line inspection” process. Key Causes of
Unnecessary Rework The
primary cause of rework, according to PSMJ, is improper
sequencing—at least for design projects. On multidisciplinary
projects, the tendency is for some disciplines to start designing before
they have the needed information from other disciplines. The electrical
engineer, for example, begins design before knowing the placement of
mechanical or structural elements in the building. Sometimes the pressure
to keep people busy encourages premature, out-of-sequence work. Other
common causes (within our control) for rework include:
The Basic QA Process The
following describes a basic preemptive quality assurance process that
seeks to prevent mistakes rather than simply catch them in the final
review. This establishes expectations and secures buy-in early. u Clarify
client goals and expectations.
Make sure you understand not only what the scope of work is, but how the
project meets strategic and personal needs. What’s really driving the
project? That’s what you ultimately have to respond to. You should also
formally benchmark quality and service expectations
with the client before proceeding. u Carefully
plan project execution.
You should prepare a project management plan (PMP), scaled appropriately
to the project’s size, complexity, and duration. Collaborate with
project stakeholders to define the best approach to meet client needs,
deliver great service, and maximize efficiency and deliverable quality.
Involve the client as much as possible up front. u Define
deliverable content in detail.
For design projects, this typically involves a basis of design report. For
reports and studies, a detailed report outline should be prepared that
summarizes not only the structure of the document but its core
observations, conclusions, and recommendations. I call either document the
“deliverable profile.” u Gain
endorsement of the PMP and deliverable profile.
Secure the buy-in of the client, project team, and other key stakeholders
(e.g., regulatory agencies). This involves not only agreement but
commitment. It’s important to get internal senior reviewers engaged at
this point. u Actively
collaborate with the project team.
Superior quality and service is best achieved by project teams that work
closely together. Conversely, lone ranger PMs who have minimal involvement
with their project teams are at the root of many problem projects. Take
steps to foster ongoing collaboration and communication. u Closely
monitor and manage project progress.
The PM is responsible for keeping the project on track in terms of meeting
scope, budget, schedule, and client expectations. Make sure you maintain
the appropriate data and feedback loops to do this. The key is to identify
and mitigate potential problems early before they become serious. u Religiously
stick to internal milestones.
One of the most common quality problems is the failure to adhere to
internal deadlines. This results in task completion being constantly
pushed toward the client deadline, meaning that the effort is rushed and
inadequately reviewed before deliverables go out the door—a sure recipe
for mistakes. As PM, tightly manage internal milestones as a priority. u Clearly
define internal review roles.
Reviewers should have distinct review roles, avoiding unnecessary
duplication or, worse still, gaps in the review process. Some degree of
overlap is desirable, but reviews tend to be more thorough when reviewers
are focusing on specific things. u Diligently check all work products. All client deliverables should be reviewed by a third party before they leave the office. More complex deliverables warrant a multiparty review. Use checklists to help ensure nothing is missed. But before third party reviews, every project contributor must check his or her own work before it is passed on. Copyright © 2002, The Business Edge, all rights reserved
|
|||||
|
Home | Experience | Articles | Links | Contact |
|||||
