Quality

• Introduction
  • Purpose
  • Quality defined
• The PRINCE2 approach
• Quality planning
  • Overview
  • The customers quality expectations
  • Acceptance criteria
  • The Project Product Description
  • The Quality Management Strategy
  • Product Descriptions
  • The Quality Register
• Quality control
  • Overview
  • Quality methods
  • Quality records
  • Approval records
  • Acceptance records
• Responsibilities

Key sections

• Introduction
• Business case
• Organization
• Quality
• Plans
• Risk
• Change
• Progress
• Introduction to processes
• Starting up a projectDirecting a project
• Initiating a project
• Controlling a stage
• Managing Product Delivery
• Managing a Stage Boundary
• Closing a Project
• Tailoring PRINCE2 to the project environment
• Directing Projects with PRINCE2

The PRINCE2 approach

Quality control

Quality methods

The cost of correcting flaws in products increases the longer they remain undetected.
It is much easier and cheaper to correct a design document early in the project than to correct a design fault that is only discovered when the finished product is being tested or, worse, when the product is already in operational use.

It follows that quality inspections, implemented early in the design and development process, are potentially the most cost-effective quality methods available.

There are two types of quality methods:

These are the means by which quality can be ‘built into’ the products as they are developed.
These might involve the use of specialist methods and/or techniques, including calibrated process controls, automation (e.g. robotics, software tools), piloting exercises, workshops, surveys and consultation, or, more simply, the use of quality inspections during the course of product development as well as upon completion

These are the means by which the finished products are assessed for completeness and fitness for purpose. There are, in essence, two types of appraisal methods, depending on the extent to which it is possible to define objective quality criteria: testing (if the quality criteria are truly objective and quantifiable) or quality inspection (if some subjective judgement is required).

A quality inspection is a systematic, structured assessment of a product conducted in a planned, documented and organized fashion.
A systematic but flexible approach to quality inspection can be used:

• During the development of products of this type, whether formally (i.e. in line with what was agreed during quality planning) or informally (simply as a means of assessing the quality of a ‘work in progress’)
• To mark the completion and approval of products
• To complement testing, e.g. simply for checking test results.

Quality inspection techniques are particularly applicable when professional judgement is required to assess the product’s fitness for purpose.
The techniques can be used within the project, as quality controls, and by independent experts, as part of quality assurance.
Peer and gateway reviews are examples of quality assurance activities that can be implemented by using or adapting a generic inspection technique.
Used as a project management team control, conducting systematic quality inspections can also have valuable team-building side-benefits.

Even when testing is the primary appraisal method, it is often the case that someone has to check that the test results meet the criteria for success and so a simple inspection is still required.

There are a variety of systematic inspection techniques, some being specific to certain industries or types of product.
PRINCE2 accommodates the use of these techniques, but also provides a useful quality review technique, which complements the use of PRINCE2 Product Descriptions.

The formal approval of a product may or may not result from a quality review.
Products that have been signed off as complete at an inspection or review may still have to be submitted to a separate authority for approval.

The PRINCE2 quality review technique

• To assess the conformity of a product which takes the form of a document (or similar item, e.g. a presentation or test results) against set criteria
• To involve key interested parties in checking the product’s quality and in promoting wider acceptance of the product
• To provide confirmation that the product is complete and ready for approval
• To baseline the product for change control purposes.

• Chair This role is responsible for the overall conduct of the review
• Presenter This role introduces the product for review and represents the producer(s) of the product. The presenter also coordinates and tracks the work after the review, i.e. applying the changes to the product agreed by the team
• Reviewer This role reviews the product, submits questions and confirms corrections and/or improvements
• Administrator This role provides administrative support for the chair and records the result and actions.

The minimum form of review (used for simple inspections, e.g. of test results) involves only two people: one taking the chair and reviewer roles, the other taking the presenter and administrator roles.

Note:
Quality review is a generic technique which can be used outside the project context.
Thus the quality review roles have no specific relationship to roles in the project management team structure.

However, team-building benefits can be realized where Project and Team Managers regularly chair reviews.
Chairing quality reviews requires competence in facilitation and independence of the product being reviewed (the primary responsibility is to ensure that the review is undertaken properly).

• Make the administrative arrangements for the review (chair/administrator)
• Check the product is ready for review and confirm the availability of the reviewers (chair)
• Distribute copies of the product and the relevant Product Description to the review team, allowing sufficient time for reviewers to prepare (presenter)
• Review the product in line with the quality criteria in the associated Product Description (reviewers)
• Submit a question list to the chair and presenter ahead of the review (reviewers)
• Annotate the product copy where there are spelling/grammar mistakes and return to the presenter (reviewers)
• Produce a consolidated question list (chair) and send to the presenter in advance of the meeting.

• Personal introductions, if necessary (chair)
• Product introduction (presenter) A very brief summary, covering the product’s purpose: who needs it, why they need it and what it will do
• Major/global questions (chair) Invite each reviewer to contribute any major or global questions with the product. Global questions are ones that appear repeatedly throughout the product. The review team agrees any action on each question as it is raised. The administrator records the actions and responsibilities
• Product ‘talk-through’ (presenter) Lead the review team through the product section by section or page by page, as appropriate, by reviewing the consolidated question list and inviting clarification where required. The review team agrees actions on each question as it is raised. The administrator records the actions and responsibilities
• Read back actions (administrator) Confirm the actions and responsibilities
• Determine the review result (chair) Lead the review team to a collective decision. The options are:
• Complete (the product is fit for purpose, as is)
• Conditionally complete (the product is fit for purpose subject to the actions)
• Incomplete (the product requires another quality review cycle)
• Close the review (chair)
• Inform interested parties of the result (chair).

• Coordinate the actions (presenter)
• Sign off individual actions (reviewers, as agreed at the meeting)
• Once all actions are complete, sign off that the product is now complete (chair)
• Communicate the quality review outcome to appropriate managers/support personnel (administrator)
• Store the quality records (administrator)
• Request approval for the product (presenter)

• Reviewers Review the product not the person. This means avoid personalizing issues (‘You ...’) and operate as a team (‘We ...’)
• Reviewers Operate as a team but defer to specialist areas of expertise. Some reviewers may be selected to address specific aspects of the product and their comments may be considered to carry more weight in those areas
• Reviewers Do not introduce trivia at reviews (spelling, punctuation etc.) unless it is a major/global issue (e.g. if the document will be communicated to an important audience, such as the public)
• Chair Encourage the presenter to maintain a steady pace during the product talk-through. The reviewers must have the opportunity to introduce their issues but allowing too much time invites comments that would not otherwise be made. The presenter should not be opening discussions unnecessarily
• Chair Resolve each point as it is raised by getting a decision from the review team. Does the product have to be changed or not? Do not allow discussions to drift. Remember, the purpose of the review is to identify defects, not to design solutions to them. Avoid the temptation to formulate and agree solutions. These should be done post-review
• Chair Focus on this product. Do not allow discussion to drift onto other related products. If it appears that there may be a problem associated with a related product, handle it outside the meeting as an issue
• Chair Make sure the reviewers contribute effectively. It is your responsibility to ensure that the approved product is fit for purpose
• Chair If a reviewer cannot attend the review, accept the question list from them and either raise the questions on their behalf, accept a delegate or replace the reviewer
• Presenter It may be that a follow-up action is not feasible to implement or cannot be done within agreed tolerances, in which case an issue should be raised to the Project Manager
• Approver If the person (or group) who will approve the product participates in the quality review, it may be possible to approve the product as part of the review.

The PRINCE2 quality review technique (and other quality inspection techniques) can yield substantial side-benefits, particularly in terms of:

• Stakeholder engagement Quality inspections are opportunities for effective cross-functional communication.
• Many important stakeholders may only have direct contact with the project through these reviews, so they provide a ‘window’ into the project. This is particularly true for users. Structured quality inspections are among the most effective ways of encouraging buy-in to the project. Generally, the more systematic and effective the reviews, the better the impression for the stakeholders
• Leadership In many circumstances a focus on quality (as in ‘fitness for purpose’) elicits a better response from review team members (and users) than simply focusing on budgets and schedules. Quality inspection techniques often provide excellent tips and ‘soft guidance’ on effective behaviour and decision making in meetings
• Team building Formal and informal quality inspections are opportunities to focus on building an effective project team, where members understand each other’s contributions, needs and priorities
• Developing individuals New starters learn from more experienced personnel and spot omissions that others take for granted. Experienced personnel learn from the fresh perspectives brought by newcomers
• Quality documentation Consistent and familiar quality records make for improvements in communication and in the analysis of quality metrics
• Quality culture The PRINCE2 quality review technique is generic. It can be employed on programmes, projects and services throughout an organization, resulting in a positive and familiar ‘quality culture’.

PRINCE2® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries.