Typical Quality-Related Challenges

To both relate some additional experiences that you have endured or observed and reemphasize some of the key points covered so far, let’s take a quick look at some common project quality-related challenges:

• Forgot to pop the question—This problem can be found on projects that are guilty of not having an organized quality approach and on projects with formal methodology coming out their ears. Always ask clients what “quality” means to them. Again, do not assume anything, especially here.
• “Good intentions, but…”—Many projects start off great. The Quality Management Plan is fully developed and approved, but then…nothing. Stuff happens and the quality management procedures are never carried out.
• “We can’t afford it”—There is a common misconception in many organizations that quality-focused efforts are overhead and cost too much. This perception originates from two main sources. One, projects in these organizations are likely managed very informally, so to add quality management seems like a major investment. Two, the quality standards don’t seem to add value. In some cases, this might be true. In either case, better understanding, communication, and salesmanship are needed. The real question to be asked is, “Can you afford not to focus on quality?” Historical data shows that in most cases, the cost of poor quality (nonconformance) is much greater than the cost of prevention.
• Not factored in the schedule—Especially on projects where the quality procedures are an afterthought, the actual quality tasks (reviews, audits, and so on) are never factored into the project schedule.
• Quality resources overallocated—In many project situations, the individuals who are designated for quality assurance roles are also fulfilling other roles. If the quality assurance role was not properly allocated and assigned to project tasks, you might have an overallocated resource. In this case, or when other pressure events occur, the quality assurance hat is often the first to go for these multirole team members.
• Testing takes more than one cycle?—An age-old dilemma on projects that require one or more testing phases on the targeted product is how much time to allocate for each phase. The common mistake is to officially schedule a testing phase as if it will be completed in the initial test cycle. I have yet to see this happen.
• Avoid gold-plating—Traditionally, gold-plating is a term associated with project scope management, and it refers to the practice of doing more (adding additional features) than what the requirements (specifications) call for without undergoing proper change control procedures. This is also an issue for project quality management for two reasons. One, the gold-plated features might introduce new quality risks into the equation. And two, the gold-plated features might do nothing to improve the actual deliverable quality, yet they can require additional time and costs.
• No risk analysis—On the one hand, many project managers are guilty of not identifying or being aware of the quality standards they are accountable for. On the other, there are project managers who blindly accept all the quality standards without properly assessing the impact to the project objectives and other critical success factors. Always assess the impact of meeting each quality standard, especially the schedule and cost impact. Decisions on priorities and risk response strategies may be needed to deal with the impact.
• Forgot to smoke test—For any work product that must be deployed or set up in a new environment, ensure that the actual deployment was correct before turning it over to the final customer. This is common for IT services, products, and resources, and this checkpoint is commonly referred to as a smoke test.

In summary, most aspects of managing project quality are interwoven into the fabric of solid project management practices. If you manage with a focus on key criteria, your projects will be well positioned to meet their quality objectives. These criteria include the following:

• The customer
• Requirements/scope
• Clear communication
• Clear completion/acceptance criteria
• Small work packages
• Prevention
• Verification
• Skilled resources and high-performing teams NoteAgile project approaches incorporate many of the quality principles, strategies, and techniques.

The Absolute Minimum

At this point, you should have a solid understanding of the following:

• The level of quality management should be consistent with client expectations, project needs, and project risk level.
• Managing project quality is tightly connected with managing requirements, project scope, project risks, suppliers, and client expectations.
• The process of managing project quality enables you to go from identifying customer needs to achieving customer satisfaction.
• Specifically, project quality procedures answer the question: How do I verify that the work is complete and correct?
• Quality is doing what you said you would do.
• Quality management addresses both product (goods and services) quality and project management quality.
• The project manager has ultimate responsibility for the project quality.
• Effective quality management is consistent with effective project management.
• Two key aspects of project quality that are often overlooked are managing the project team and managing requirements.
• Historically, the costs of prevention are significantly less than the costs of quality defects.
• Essential tools for project quality management are the Quality Management Plan, checklists, reviews, requirements traceability matrix, audits, verification procedures, and clear completion criteria.
• Checklists and templates allow quality expectations to be clearly communicated and enforced. They also provide a way to pass along lessons learned from past projects.
• To ensure overall project quality, ensure each deliverable along the way meets quality expectations.
• For additional information on quality function deployment, visit the Quality Function Deployment Institute.

The map in Figure 15.2 summarizes the main points.