Chapter 8
Project Quality Management
The PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition states on page 179 that “Project Quality Management processes include all the activities of the performing organization that determine quality policies, objectives, and responsibilities so that the project will satisfy the needs for which it was undertaken.” On government projects, these needs are defined by the government body acting on behalf of the public. In large governments, the needs are generally stated as goals for a program, rather than for individual projects. Project Quality Management on government projects is frequently an oversight activity undertaken as part of procurement; see Chapter 12 (Project Procurement Management) in this extension.
Chapter 8 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition describes three processes:
8.1 Quality Planning
8.1.1 Quality Planning: Inputs
Section 8.1.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition discusses inputs to Quality Planning. All inputs listed are used on government projects, and two have particular application in government:
- .1 Enterprise Environmental Factors
Governmental agency regulations, rules, standards, and guidelines specific to the application area may affect the project. This is particularly true in developing the project charter, and all of the organization’s enterprise environmental factors and systems that surround and influence the project’s success. See also Section 4.1.1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .2 Organizational Process Assets
According to the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition, “the quality policy, as endorsed by senior management, is the intended direction of a performing organization with regard to quality.” In government, quality policy is rooted in the laws and regulations, or in policies established by the government body. If quality policy is established in the laws and regulations, the government body will generally add further details in rules and procedures.
The PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition also states on page 184, “the project management team is responsible for ensuring that the project stakeholders are fully aware of [the quality policy].” On government projects, this means that they must be aware of their responsibilities under the constitution and under law; see Section 1.2.4 on (Why are Government Projects Unique?).
Because government quality policy is rooted in the constitution and other documents that seldom change, government quality policies should not change much. Projects may vary considerably, but they remain focused on service to the voters and taxpayers in accordance with established quality policy.
- .3 Project Scope Statement
See Section 8.1.1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .4 Project Management Plan
See Section 8.1.1.4 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
8.1.2 Quality Planning: Tools and Techniques
Section 8.1.2 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition discusses five tools and techniques for Quality Planning. All are used on government projects. Under the fifth heading, an additional tool specific to government projects is mentioned:
- .1 Cost-Benefit Analysis
See Section 8.1.2.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .2 Benchmarking
See Section 8.1.2.2 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .3 Design of Experiments
See Section 8.1.2.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .4 Cost of Quality
See Section 8.1.2.4 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .5 Additional Quality Planning Tools
See Section 8.1.2.5 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition. One additional quality-planning tool is performance-based budgeting; see Section 7.2 of this document.
- .6 Performance-Based and Gateway Budgeting
Sections 6.4.1.6, 7.3.1.5, and 7.3.2.4 of this document discuss the problems of the annual budget cycle. Some governments have begun to adopt performance-based budgeting as an alternative to the rigid annual process. For projects, this is rooted in the concept of the “triple constraint” (see Section 1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition). Quality projects deliver the required product scope on time and within budget. If a change is made to any of the three factors, at least one other factor must change. Every change is, therefore, a change in quality.
For programs and projects, the government body establishes performance measures for each of the three quality factors. Program managers are permitted to trade off between the three factors to achieve the overall program goals. This includes permission to change the annual budget, within prescribed limits.
Performance-based budgeting can be of great benefit to the voters and taxpayers.
However, there are pitfalls:
- Performance measures must be carefully designed to encourage desirable behavior.
- Poorly defined measures can require managers to make the wrong decisions in order to meet their performance target.
- The design of the measures requires a thorough understanding of the program.
In large governments, the executive generally reports progress to the government body only once a year. It would be wasteful to gather the data for more frequent reports, and the legislative cycle typically allows the government body to take action only on an annual cycle.
For performance-based budgeting, annual reports are inadequate. If performance is not adequate or the process is abused, the government body must be able to take action more frequently than once a year. This typically requires an independent “watchdog” body, with paid auditors who review data from the program and report to the government body if there is a need to take immediate action.
Other governmental entities are employing “gateway” or “zero-balance” budgeting. Considering the three factors of project management (scope, time, and cost), these entities begin with a “zero-balance” budget at the start of the project, ask the project manager to determine the cost of the project in phases, and request these monies prior to the beginning of a new phase. Gateways are appropriate windows in the project process for monitoring progress and making decisions through project reviews. The following gateways are suggested for budgeting considerations:
(a) Phase 1—Concept
- Initial gateway budget request
- Project proposal for budget support/selection
- Initial negotiations with customer/stakeholders
- Initial staffing of project team, project manager selected, project team leads identified, core team members selected
- Broad scope: product and professional services
- Complete identification of and staffing of project team.
(b) Phase 2—Definition
- Second gateway budget request
- Detailed scope
- Task list—tool used for project work breakdown structure development
- Project work breakdown structure—tool used for gateway identification and utilization
- Risk analysis.
(c) Phase 3—Design and Implementation
- Design of final product
- Implementation plan—implementation of product design
- Installation or conduct of project activities
- Delivery of services.
(d) Phase 4—Project Closeout and Follow-up
- Customer/stakeholder feedback
- Financial performance
- Project documentation
- Lessons learned
- Closeout.
The gateways are usually identified by selecting a small group from a highly detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) diagram, where each WBS spans no less than 80 hours. This allows the project manager to “track” resource loading. The project manager can then prepare and submit a new budgeting request within the time frame necessary to keep the project funded over the next budgeting period. In effect, gateway or zero-balancing budgeting assists the project manager in better understanding the cost benefit of each phase of the project, and making the calculations for earned value more meaningful to the sponsors and stakeholders.
8.1.3 Quality Planning: Outputs
See Section 8.1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
8.2 Perform Quality Assurance
Quality assurance, for some government-regulated facilities, such as facilities for creating electricity using nuclear materials, facilities for handling transuranics or special nuclear materials, hazardous waste disposal sites, drinking water purification facilities, etc., is substantially different from the norm for other industries, as specified in the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition. Such facilities must meet specific requirements and regulations, as well as the supporting guidance documents that are often issued by agencies overseeing these facilities. The government is ultimately responsible for quality assurance, a duty that cannot be delegated.
8.2.1 Perform Quality Assurance: Inputs
Section 8.2.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition describes ten inputs to Perform Quality Assurance, all of which apply in government projects. An eleventh input, Regulatory Requirements and Guidance, has been added, and its special application to government projects is explained in Section 8.2.1.11.
- .1 Quality Management Plan
See Section 8.2.1.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .2 Quality Metrics
See Section 8.2.1.2 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .3 Process Improvement Plan
See Section 8.2.1.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .4 Work Performance Information
See Section 8.2.1.4 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .5 Approved Change Requests
See Section 8.2.1.5 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .6 Quality Control Measurements
See Section 8.2.1.6 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .7 Implemented Change Requests
See Section 8.2.1.7 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .8 Implemented Corrective Actions
See Section 8.2.1.8 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .9 Implemented Defect Repair
See Section 8.2.1.9 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .10 Implemented Preventive Actions
See Section 8.2.1.10 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .11 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance
This heading refers to regulatory requirements and guidance, such as that expressed in national, regional, and local regulations, as well as documents produced by standards-setting organizations like PMI, ISO, and others. These provide a level of work guidance for audits, surveillance, testing, and inspections. The results of audits, surveillance, testing, and inspections should be formally documented and included in the overall Quality Assurance process.
8.2.2 Perform Quality Assurance: Tools and Techniques
- .1 Quality Planning Tools and Techniques
See Section 8.2.2.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .2 Quality Audits
Additional aspects of quality audits are inspections, surveillance, and walk-throughs. The inspections and surveillance are also structured, independent reviews, but are more in-line with performance-based activities checks than reviews to determine whether project activities are in compliance. The walkthrough is a process during which a trained specialist observes activities based on procedure compliance, where the activity is being walked through, not performed. In this instance, quality audits inaccuracies can be observed, recorded and remedied without the hazard of non-compliance.
- .3 Process Analysis
See Section 8.2.2.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .4 Quality Control Tools and Techniques
See Section 8.2.2.4 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
8.2.3 Perform Quality Assurance: Outputs
Section 8.2.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition describes four outputs of Perform Quality Assurance, all of which apply in government projects. A fifth output of importance in government work (“Notification of Non-Compliance [Deficiencies]”) appears in this extension as Section 8.2.3.5.
- .1 Requested Changes
See Section 8.2.3.1 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .2 Recommended Corrective Actions
See Section 8.2.3.2 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .3 Organizational Process Assets (Updates)
See Section 8.2.3.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .4 Project Management Plan (Updates)
See Section 8.2.3.4 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.
- .5 Notification of Non-Compliance (Deficiencies)
Continuous quality improvement also relies on observing Quality Assurance inaccuracies during audits, inspections, surveillance, and walk-throughs. When quality issues arise, such as non-compliance with a requirement or a violation of regulatory requirements, state or plan procedures, documentation is required that details these issues, including the requirement in question and the item(s) of non-compliance. Tracking these items of non-compliance from the time of observation to closeout and detailing the corrective actions taken as “lessons learned” can assist in preventing additional non-compliance.
8.3 Perform Quality Control
See Section 8.3 of the PMBOK® Guide—Third Edition.