Achieving technical excellence and customer satisfaction
Key points
■ The personal definition of quality
■ Planning for quality management
■ International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
■ Demonstrating quality assurance
■ Quality-assurance tools
■ Quality control processes
■ The true costs of quality
■ Embracing continuous improvement
In practice
For such an objective topic, quality has an incredibly subjective pedigree.
So what does quality mean and imply? Is it an agreed standard of work, a specification, a requirement, a business rule, what the finished work looks like or how well some function is performed? And does it relate to only quality management systems, to management systems in general or is it the sole domain of project management?
Realistically, it could be all of these. Each of these interpretations (or measures) of quality sound as if they are output based. In other words, they each describe the finished product, service or, in our terms, how well the output or outcome (remember that these are two entirely different concepts) of the project complies with some measure—ideally some performance measure (acceptance criteria) or other project objective.
But taking a broader perspective, our understanding of quality could, in fact, be extended to include what could be termed ‘process-based’ criteria for examining quality—in other words, the supporting (business or project) processes through which the agreed quality standards are regularly (and perhaps randomly) monitored, inspected and reported on to ensure compliance is maintained from start to finish.
So is it a measure? Is it a process? And does it (whatever it is) enable project organisations to succeed through targeting management responsibility, performance enhancement, employee motivation, customer satisfaction and continual improvement?
Chapter overview
PMBOK (2013) defines project quality management as the ‘processes and activities…that determine quality policies, objectives and responsibilities’, contributing to satisfying the project’s objectives. Through a process predicated on continuous improvement, quality management ensures that both the project’s physical requirements (scope, schedule and cost) and process requirements (documentation) are addressed.
Project management quality processes include documenting the quality management plan (in line with all the other project management processes); ensuring that appropriate quality standards, technical criteria, business rules, operational procedures and definitions are defined; and monitoring and assessing performance with the recorded results (conformance or non-conformance) triggering the required changes and control.
In many instances, project quality is a personal dimension, framed by individual experiences, expectations, values and attitudes. For some, quality implies reliability; for others, it means value for money, fit for purpose, an improvement or enhancement over an earlier product or service; and for others still, it is a reflection of the image and position the product holds in the marketplace. However, being such a personal and versatile dimension only makes its ultimate measurement all the more difficult. And quality essentially implies (perhaps dictates) measurement. If you cannot measure something, it makes it rather difficult to ensure conformance and improvement.
Clearly, different types of projects (and their parent organisations) will adhere to different quality processes, measures and techniques. Some will seek direction from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 series; some will adhere to the technical requirements of the work itself and agreed acceptance criteria; while others may follow benchmarking or other proprietary aspects of best practice. Regardless of the philosophy followed, quality-management processes seek to produce a prevention dividend by minimising variations (regardless of their source) while delivering verified results that meet (not exceed) the client’s requirements. (Remember, while exceeding your client’s expectations might appear noble, the question remains of who pays for it and in whose time is it performed—clearly not the client’s.)
Critical reflection 7.1
Quality means different things to different people as they each assign some subjective attribute or measure to something of value.
■ Before reading any further, identify what the quality requirements are for your current project.
■ Is this your personal perception only, or is quality unambiguously defined somewhere?
■ Who do you think will ultimately determine whether or not the quality has been delivered throughout the project?
Planning for quality management
The concept of quality and total quality management (TQM) has been with us for decades, possibly dating back to the military projects of World War II and the collective works of Shewhart, Deming, Crosby, Juran, Ishikawa and Feigenbaum—the acknowledged fathers of the quality revolution. In the traditional sense, TQM is a process that embraces management and employee involvement that is directed towards continuous improvement in productivity, quality and workplace harmony.
Quality management also has a more strategic and central presence within and across the project organisation, as it is:
■ defined externally from the client’s perspective (recall that the client is always right):
□ performance (essential operating attribute)
□ features (secondary operating attribute)
□ reliability (frequency of failure)
□ conformance (matching required specification)
□ durability (ensuing product or service life)
□ serviceability (speed, courtesy and competence of repair)
□ aesthetics (outward appearance, finish and fit)
□ perception (acuity, feelings or reputation)
■ linked with the triple bottom line:
□ social
□ environmental
□ economic
■ associated with a demonstrated, organisation-wide commitment.
The true meaning of the word ‘quality’ and how it impacts on the project, both from a management perspective and a product, service or result (deliverable) perspective, is still open to wide debate, interpretation and application. The Macquarie Dictionary defines quality as a characteristic, property or attribute that belongs to or distinguishes something with respect to excellence, fitness or attainment. If we now apply this definition to a project, every project is created and managed to be successful as measured against some defining benchmark, most notably time achievement (the schedule), scope compliance (technical specification) and cost control (the budget). However, project success (and, by inference, its quality) is also measured against the client’s identified and agreed needs, and their unconditional acceptance at the end of the project.
Quality considerations belong chiefly at the front end of the project when the investment or concept is being discussed, alternatives are being proposed, the tentative schedule is being put together, budget baselines are determined and the commitments that will ultimately drive the project’s success are signed off on. This is not to say that quality is ignored in the later stages; what it means is that once it is built in from the beginning, quality—both from a process management and technical compliance perspective—can be monitored, managed, reviewed and controlled. In other words, the earlier mistakes, omissions, rework and other examples of required corrective action can be identified, the cheaper they may be to correct, as the true costs of identification and rectification will invariably increase exponentially over the project’s life-cycle.
Clearly, quality planning is not an overnight activity, nor is it something that is done once in isolation. As with most project management processes, quality planning is progressive, iterative and constantly reviewed. Nor should it be overlooked or fast-tracked due to the time involved. Often the difficulty is getting buy-in from everyone. As with most plans, it will only be as good as the information it contains. Ultimately, the quality plan (or its component parts) will be instrumental in describing how the project management team will implement, monitor and review the project-quality policies and results throughout the project. Finally, the quality plan will need to be endorsed, communicated and maintained across all project stakeholders.
Ideally, the quality management plan will formally collate the ‘right’ approach to be followed by the project organisation in meeting the project’s objectives. Capturing the relevant quality requirements, standards and other measurable expectations, the plan will document how compliance will be demonstrated and validated throughout the project’s life-cycle. Key elements found in the plan should reference the following:
■ the quality methodology (or approach) to be followed in managing the project
■ relevant standards, rules or guidelines to be adopted in performing the work
■ review of the product descriptions
■ monitoring and inspection regimes
■ identification of acceptance criteria
■ agreed processes for dealing with authorised changes, incidents and issues (change control)
■ risk-mitigation procedures
■ confirmation of roles and responsibilities
■ existing operational governance procedures
■ scope, schedule and cost baselines
■ external agency regulations
■ relevant working and/or operating conditions that may impact the project
■ opportunity for feedback (meetings and other forums)
■ tools and techniques used in assuring and controlling quality—for example, data flow diagrams, process flowcharts, cause–effect diagrams, storyboards, check sheets, Gantt charts, scatter diagrams, control charts and other quality tools.
Underpinning these planning activities is the central tenet of quality project management—quality is always planned into the project from the start, and not simply randomly inspected in as required. While a convenience dividend (in formally ignoring the importance of quality) is often the decision of choice for some project organisations, the quality management plan enables a ‘sharper focus on the project’s value proposition and reductions in costs and in the frequency of schedule overruns caused by rework’ (PMBOK, 2013). Clearly, the challenge for the project organisation is to truly understand and manage the different quality lenses through which both measurable and qualitative expectations are created and satisfied.
Turner (1997) suggests there are six prerequisites to ensure the project adheres to a quality regime—these are summarised in Table 7.1 along with additional ‘process’ suggestions.
Remember that quality is often exactly what the client claims it to be, and it will change as the stakeholder changes. Despite being characterised by this fluid and subjective form, quality also involves the culture, mindsets and methods at the organisation’s disposal to drive the quality imperative (Cole 2010). Assuring such a commanding, if not elusive, edict is no mean feat either.
| Assuring quality | Exactly how… |
|---|---|
| Budget cost | This means that the project is decomposed (through the WBS) to the lowest level required to identify the client’s requirements accurately. Clearly, a balance needs to be found between too much and not enough detail. One way to overcome this is to define the specification in not only its technical domain but also its performance and/or functional domains. |
| Clear specification | Many project deliverables already have established and acknowledged standards, which are openly communicated, not open to interpretation and cannot be avoided without possible penalty. Where possible, these should be sourced and agreed. |
| Defined standards | History breeds both experience and information, both of which can be put to good use in determining the appropriate standards (where there might be no ‘official’ standard). |
| Historical experience | The only thing worse than not having a clear specification is having resources unqualified and/or untrained to perform the work to the required standard (perhaps your worst project nightmare). In these days of downsizing and all the popular ‘resource-eating’ business philosophies and practices, the specification must be in writing (with penalty clauses for breaches). |
| Qualified resources | Certification at either the second- or third-party level are two ways to ensure that quality is being built into the deliverable. While relatively expensive to obtain (and sustain), think of it as another prevention cost. |
| Impartial reviews | The only constant in any project is change, so why wouldn’t you plan for it by designing appropriate controls to account for the changes when they arise? A change of scope request is such a control; an updated risk assessment is another change control, as is the revised project schedule. |
| Effective change control | Quality is everyone’s responsibility, not just that of one person or department. |
| Organisational-wide commitment | Like other project management processes, quality needs to be assessed and aligned with all the other processes—time, cost, human resources and so on looking for overlap, interaction and dependencies. |
| Integrated processes | While planning may well be a mental process to begin with, it must end up on ‘live’ paper as the plan will always change and need updating. |
| Documented planning | Projects do not produce quality as an accidental outcome or by-product. Accordingly, ongoing planning that is documented, reviewed and amended over time is required to ensure all associated costs and realities of quality management have been captured and communicated. |
PMBOK (2013) defines quality assurance performance as the ‘process of auditing the quality requirements and the results from quality control measures to ensure that appropriate quality standards and operational definitions are used’. This approach is compatible with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as detailed in the ISO 9000 standards and the supporting 10,000 series of standards and guidelines and other relevant proprietary and non-proprietary approaches to quality management (the ISO has developed over 17,000 standards, mostly relating to product and process).
Much like a declaration or guarantee that the overall project performance and result are evaluated on a regular basis to give all stakeholders the confidence that the relevant quality standards will be satisfied, assurance may involve:
■ adoption of an internationally certifiable process
■ eight quality management principles cited by the 9000 series, reflecting management best practice:
1 customer focus
2 leadership
3 people involvement
4 process approach
5 system approach to management
6 factual approach to decision-making
7 continual improvement
8 mutually beneficial supplier relationships
■ an innate and public culture that says ‘quality is what we do’
■ a spirit of experimentation and a creative climate
■ internal systems, procedures and practices to build quality into the start of the project
■ processes to eliminate waste, variation and excess:
□ a surplus/deficiency in resources to complete the work
□ inappropriate methods when performing the work (e.g. the use of labour-intensive methods when automation would save time)
□ excessive float in the schedule, encouraging the work to expand to fill the time available
□ the location and/or standard of the facilities creating access, storage or logistic problems
□ poor administration and management infrastructure causing communication bottlenecks, decision delays or a bureaucratic (and unnecessary) administrative framework
□ delays in accessing and verifying information such as progress, status and forecast completion reports
■ avenues for open, honest and constructive feedback
■ opportunities for continuous improvement
■ transparent relationships between internal and external clients and suppliers.
Getting the quality documentation right
Quality can be assured with reference to three different types of documents: a detailed quality manual that sets out the organisational quality objectives and policies; an operating procedure required by a particular business unit; or specific work instructions nominating how a given activity needs to be performed. As with any form of documentation, problems can be common, time consuming and detrimental to the project’s quality footprint. These problems may include:
■ a lack of standardised processes
■ omitting some of the required procedures
■ a lack of familiarity with the procedure
■ poorly sequenced procedures
■ out-of-date procedures
■ an inability to map end-to-end processes
■ ambiguous language
■ inconsistent levels of detail
■ over-reliance on verbal explanations
■ failing to account for variations
■ inaccurate documentation
■ different formatting styles
■ an inability to measure and communicate results
■ failing to involve all key stakeholders.
While all these points impact the ability to assure project quality through improved quality processes (in both physical and process-based terms), direct involvement, total support and demonstrated commitment are crucial in removing activities that do not add value. Quality is not a part-time activity performed only by the quality circle members, the quality inspectors, the audit team or the statisticians. It is owned and demonstrated by everyone as they work to communicate openly, reduce errors, deliver quality, work together, promote involvement, improve problem-solving and enhance motivation.
As Cole (2010) reflects, quality assurance comes from paying attention to the little things—the things that some people will miss as they try to do 100 things 1 per cent better as opposed to trying to do one thing 100 per cent better (as practised under the ‘Kaizen’ principle of continuous incremental improvement).
For want of a nail the shoe was lost
For want of a shoe the horse was lost
For want of a horse the rider was lost
For want of a rider the battle was lost
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
— proverb from Poor Richard’s Almanac
In seeking to assure that work in progress will be completed in line with agreed expectations and other stated requirements, quality assurance ‘will prevent defects through the planning processes or by inspecting out defects during the work-in-progress stage on implementation’ (PMBOK, 2013). Clearly, the initial scope baseline, schedule baseline and budget baseline will be integral to making some of these judgements during the planning stages and, subsequently, in the iterative revisions to each during the implementation and close-out stages.
Critical reflection 7.2
Re-read the proverb above (slowly this time), then ask yourself:
■ What have been the ‘nails’ in your past projects that came back to ‘bite’ the project and possibly you?
■ What remedial action was required at the time to avoid ‘losing the kingdom’?
■ What current or future assurance activities can you undertake to ensure that the technical excellence required by the client is delivered?
Systematic quality assurance tools
Over the years, a number of numeric, text and graphical modelling tools have been developed to assist quality assurance (and ultimately control). Collectively, the tools are not only designed to gather the raw data required as efficiently and accurately as possible; they also endeavour to reflect discernible data patterns, variability, redundancies and exceptions. More often than not, all the tools are simple and easy to use, although this does not dilute their value in reporting process information and the opportunity for further analysis and control. While no one tool is exhaustive in identifying, measuring and analysing improvement opportunities, they could all be considered practical. Cole (2010) suggests a variety of useful and objective analytical tools and techniques applicable to identifying and resolving problems, streamlining systems and processes, and building in quality. They are included in Table 7.2, along with additional suggestions from PMBOK (2013) and other well-known diagnostic and analytical tools. Figure 7.1 illustrates ten of these tools.
Here we look at controlling quality, controlling the costs of quality and continuous quality improvement.
Table 7.2 Systematic quality assurance (and control) tools
| Brainstorming | Group participation in generating ideas |
|---|---|
| Control charts | Setting upper and lower limits to determine a stable or predictable pattern of performance |
| Flowcharts | Sequential display of steps and their branching possibilities |
| As-Is diagram | Mapping the ‘current state’ of a process |
| Pareto chart | Graphical representation of the vital few sources responsible for causing most of the effects |
| Cause and effect diagram | Narrowing down possible causes to the main cause (primary, secondary and tertiary causes) |
| Force field analysis | Identifying reasons for and against a change |
| Five ‘whys’ | Asking ‘why’ five times to uncover the main cause |
| Histograms | Simple bar charts showing dispersion rate, central tendency and the shape of a statistical distribution |
| Scatter diagrams | Correlation charts explaining a change in the dependent variable as observed by a change in the corresponding independent variable |
| PDCA cycle | An iterative four-step management method (plan–do–check–act) for the control and continuous improvement of processes and products |
| Affinity diagrams | A mind-mapping process creating structure around an issue |
| Tree diagrams | Visualising parent–child relationships in any decomposed hierarchy |
| Prioritisation matrix | Prioritised and weighted criteria to obtain mathematical scores and option ranking |
| Network diagrams | Precedent (logic) diagrams showing activity sequencing |
| Data flow diagram | A graphic overview of the flow of data or a process through a system |
| Tick sheet | A structured method of capturing data by making marks (checks) |
| Circling | Sharpening problem definition by circling key words |
| Interrelationship digraph | Maps moderately complex scenarios possessing intertwined logical relationships |
| Pie charts | Circular graphs depicting percentage slices of the whole 100 per cent |
| Checklists | A component specific set of required steps |
| Statistical sampling | Choosing a random part of a population for inspection |
| Benchmarking | Comparisons with comparable projects to identify best practice; a basis for measuring performance and generating ideas for improvement |
| Design of experiments | Statistical method for identifying factors influencing specific product or process variables |
| Meetings | Opportunity to discuss, review and amend information |
| Audits | Structured and independent process to assess compliance |
| Change requests | Provision for full consideration of proposed changes, for taking corrective action, preventative action or to perform defect repairs |
| Inspection | Onsite, physical compliance check |
| Lessons learned logs | Historical database of variance causes, corrective action and other lessons |
Controlling quality
The extensive list of tools and techniques cited above under quality assurance also helps address the processes driving quality control. PMBOK (2013) identifies controlling quality as the ‘process of monitoring and recording the results of executing the quality activities to assess performance and recommend necessary changes’. Not only would this identify and confirm the contributing factors leading to the poor processes undermining quality; it would also validate the requirements for final acceptance. While confidence can be established initially through the quality plan and the assurance processes and tools, quality control is used through the implementation and finalisation stages of the project to ‘formally demonstrate, with reliable data…that acceptance criteria have been met’.
In other words, quality control monitors specific task and project results to identify, measure and eliminate the causes of unsatisfactory performance, while also ensuring that quality compliance is always demonstrated and achieved.
Figure 7.1 Quality assurance and control tools
Remember that control implies measurement. As a direct result of this mix of scheduled (and random) attempts at quality control come:
■ elimination of rework
■ completion of work in progress
■ confirmation of acceptance
■ documented quality improvement
■ completed checklists
■ process adjustments.
Controlling the costs of quality
In many cases, control activities can be relatively expensive whenever the required work is performed more than once—for example, in the case of defective work. If you get it right the first time, every time, there may be no onerous direct cost for delivering a quality outcome. It is only when the work needs to be repaired time and time again that quality incurs a direct cost—one that increases exponentially with the number of times the work is repeated. For many, the continued perception is that ‘in-built’ quality is an expensive endeavour, and that it is difficult to evaluate projects in terms of a commercial value proposition—for example, cost improvement and profit enhancement. However, with general acceptance that quality costs can be assessed under four broad groups (prevention, appraisal, internal and external), project organisations, stakeholders, project managers and teams can now evaluate these costs more confidently, accurately and independently.
Prevention costs are charged when it is necessary to prevent defective work, products or services being handed over to clients. While it is realistic to assume that the most effective (and immediate) way to manage this type of cost is to avoid having defects in the first place, inferior work can still be performed, resulting in clients being dissatisfied with the work they are expected to approve and accept. Examples of some direct and indirect preventative costs include:
■ quality planning processes
■ quality auditing
■ investment in knowledge management and information systems
■ provision and maintenance of safety equipment
■ design approvals, verification and change control
■ product liability insurance
■ ongoing technical support provided to suppliers
■ independent external assessments
■ team meetings (quality circles)
■ time developing detailed schedules
■ planning to recall faulty products
■ supervision of prevention activities
■ a regime of preventative maintenance
■ time reviewing and updating baselines
■ quality inductions, education and training initiatives
■ designing and developing quality measurement tests and equipment.
Appraisal costs are charged when costs are incurred to identify defective work, products or services before client acceptance and handover. Any defect should be identified as early as possible in both the planning and implementation stages. The reality, however, is that performing appraisal activities alone doesn’t always prevent defects from happening again, and most managers realise that reliance on just an inspection regime can be both a costly and an ineffective approach to quality control. Examples of direct and indirect appraisal costs include:
■ repair, rework or replacement
■ re-inspection and testing
■ discarded scrap and waste materials
■ recall costs
■ defect diagnostics
■ returned products
■ downtime with lost production
■ contingent legal liability
■ warranty claims
■ feedback, evaluations and reporting
■ penalties and punitive late fees
■ calibration and performance testing
■ inspection of work in progress
■ independent external assessments
■ record storage and archival
■ report analysis and interpretation
■ completion certificates
■ utilities in the inspection area
■ final product testing and inspection
■ maintenance of test equipment
■ supervision of inspection activities
■ depreciation of test equipment.
Internal failure costs are charged when a product fails to conform to its specified design requirements, and result from the identification of defects before the products are shipped to clients. The more effective a company’s appraisal activities are, the greater the chance of catching defects internally and reducing the level of internal failure costs—which can be incredibly expensive and prolonged. Examples of direct and indirect internal failure costs include:
■ the residual cost of scrap
■ the net cost of spoilage
■ reworking labour and overheads
■ re-inspection of reworked products
■ productivity erosion
■ the disposal of defective products
■ debugging the process or system
■ the time required to re-enter data.
External failure costs are charged when a defective product is delivered to a client. In the past, some managers have taken the attitude that ‘we give it all to the client and deal with any issues under the warranty’. This attitude generally results in high external failure costs, poor client relationships, a bad reputation in the market, and a loss of profits. Examples of direct and indirect external failure costs include:
■ legal liability from legal action
■ loss of reputation and goodwill
■ in-field servicing
■ warranty repairs and replacements
■ repairs/replacements outside warranty
■ liability arising from defective products
■ returns and allowances
■ product recalls
■ out-of-warranty complaints
■ processing complaints
■ product liability.
Gardiner (2005) suggests that the total cost of quality can be captured in the following formula:
Total quality cost = failure costs + appraisal costs + prevention costs
However, he cautions that a balance is required between the total cost of prevention and appraisal on the one hand, and the total cost of failure on the other. Without quality management processes in place, he presents a compelling case that failure costs will probably far exceed appraisal and preventative costs (if the true costs of quality are, in fact, known and accurately reported to begin with). Perhaps if projects could devote more time to the prevention of costs, both money and time could be saved, as the subsequent appraisal and failure costs often incurred as projects progress could be minimised or avoided.
Despite the potential for these extensive and impressive costs, not every deviation warrants an immediate corrective action pathway. Both tolerances (specified range of acceptable results) and control limits (boundaries of common variation) will need to be agreed and complied with in controlling work performance data (PMBOK, 2013). These variations will be evident in comparisons between:
■ planned and actual technical performance
■ planned and actual schedule performance
■ planned and actual cost performance.
In these instances, a formal and documented change-control request process will be mandatory in approving those accepted and rejected changes—be they changes in stated requirements, defect repairs, revised work methods, schedule modification or risk treatments to ensure quality assurance and compliance are being met.
Critical reflection 7.3
Quality costs each and every time. In most cases, the person specifying the quality pays for it. In other cases, though, the true cost of quality may be accidently overlooked or intentionally ignored.
■ Building on from the examples in the text, identify genuine costs that your project has incurred in delivering quality.
■ For each cost, work out who rightly ‘owned’ the cost.
■ now determine how that cost was actually paid for. Was it charged directly to the client, paid for out of contingency funds, borne by the operational overhead of the project organisation, funded by savings made from downgrading other work, deleting scheduled activities altogether, or simply ignored?
■ Depending on your answer to the above question, what changes would you recommend to deal with the costs of quality?
Continuous improvement
While it may appear last in the list of quality processes, continuous improvement is not delayed to the last thing we do, nor is it the big result that automatically drops out of quality planning, assurance and control. Certainly, each of these lays down the framework and supporting infrastructure to enable, encourage and reward continuous improvement initiatives throughout the project. However, continuous improvement is more of a culture, a commitment and an ownership of what the project is delivering, and ultimately of how well it is being delivered. Where innovation and feedback are encouraged, continuous improvement will flourish.
Where efficiencies, economies of scale and capacity can be enhanced, continuous improvement will equally flourish. Where risk-taking is supported, where different approaches and ideas are canvassed, continuous improvement will again flourish. Realistically, continuous improvement can never be mandated by a standard business rule or a stakeholder expectation.
The typical tools of continuous improvement are not all that exotic. They commonly include:
■ regular performance reporting
■ meetings and debriefs
■ decision gates and approval processes
■ walkthroughs and peer reviews
■ scenario analysis
■ evaluation reports
■ suggestion boxes
■ user feedback.
Critical reflection 7.4
The term ‘continuous improvement’ conveys so much: change, innovation, feedback, creativity, strengths, opportunities and the like. Is it just a documented practice or an assumption buried within the organisational (invisible) culture?
■ In your own words, define what continuous improvement is in your projects.
■ If you were not particularly happy with the answer you just gave, try again by defining what it should be like in your projects.
■ What actions are required to make the necessary changes, whereby continuous improvement becomes an ongoing, consistently applied and publicly demonstrated practice where accountability and transparency reign supreme?
7.1 Define the term ‘quality’ and explain its relevance to project management.
7.2 What intrinsic value does quality planning have for your project?
7.3 What role does quality assurance play in dealing with the associated quality costs?
7.4 What systematic tools and techniques are applicable in reporting direct and indirect quality costs?
7.5 How is quality control different from quality assurance?
Marsha and noel thought they had a winning idea in wanting to self-publish their first e-book. Not only would it leverage off the plethora of books on gardening, nutrition and organics, but all their friends had given it a glowing endorsement.
Their book, Going Green: Reinventing Our Community Street by Street, did come with a catch, though—neither Marsha nor Noel knew anything about publishing. So they decided to go online and invite specialists in the field to submit an expression of interest (EOI) for the technical side of things—editing, designing and publishing the e-book while at the same time ensuring Marsha and Noel would be delighted with the result (the basic tenet of quality management).
Their friends had suggested that they put together some form of document that helped clarify what it was they actually wanted—especially given their emotional attachment to the book and their collective expectations and assumptions. However, they were both so immersed in ‘greening their community’ that they didn’t quite get around to doing it. Over the next couple of weeks, they received over 60 global responses and then spent another two weeks trying to sort through all the information they had received, most of which was unintelligible to them both.
As they sat in their lounge room wading through the EOIs, Marsha remarked that she couldn’t understand any of the points, as most were just vague statements, while others seemed like techno-babble, particularly the following:
■ KDP intake systems
■ custom media solution
■ comprehensive guidance
■ flexible and attractive cover options
■ NCX navigation
■ powerful book building website
■ expert editorial team
■ apple-approved aggregator
■ exciting new technologies
■ innovative software platform.
Feeling bewildered, Marsha and Noel decided to set their personal self-interest aside and adopt a more strategic approach to ensure that their publishing objectives would be met. Having defined their objective, they set about drafting a project brief detailing what they wanted.
…they wanted to know what ‘real-time’ processes the successful contractor would have in place to deliver on this guarantee.
At this stage, as they had no idea of how it would all come together, they limited their notes to what they wanted and the features they thought the e-book should have. No doubt they would get some further ideas from the reissued EOI; however, they felt they needed to put down some form of initial and tangible benchmark against which subsequent offers, engagement and e-book delivery could be assessed. They knew that if they got this early documentation right, the later stages of this project might be less stressful and produce the very result they wanted.
They also realised that they would need some mechanism to guarantee that whoever they engaged actually lived up to their objectives, not to mention the technical aspects of putting the e-book together and getting it up on the web. While they could rely on the contract they would put together, they wanted to know what ‘real-time’ processes the successful contractor would have in place to deliver on this guarantee. After all, they didn’t want to spend all their time chasing up broken promises. Nor did they want to end up with an e-book they wouldn’t accept, which meant they had to devise some means of monitoring and controlling the contractor’s quality from start to finish, while at the same time being open to new ideas, fresh approaches and some degree of innovation—particularly if technology and/or the market changed.
Marsha and Noel now realised that without an equally great focus on the quality processes, activities and documentation behind the book, their ‘potentially’ great book could actually result in very little result.
Questions
1 In support of Marsha and Noel’s refocus on their strategic publishing objectives, what would their quality management plan look like?
2 What steps should Marsha and Noel follow in assuring the contractor’s performance and result?
3 How do you suggest Marsha and Noel should control the project quality to ensure compliance and acceptance?
4 What would be some indicators that Marsha and Noel were open to new ideas, proposed changes and other forms of continuous improvement.