Introduction
In the preceding chapters the importance of quality in the success of a project and the role of quality in project management processes were addressed. It is generally accepted that the minimum success criteria of projects are that they should be completed to time, to budget and to quality. However, when one explores what is meant by quality the answers are often vague and variable. If someone talks about ‘working on project quality’, they may simply mean activities related to quality management systems recommended in bodies of knowledge (e.g. PMBOK, 2008; PRINCE2, 2009) and they ensure the compliance to procedures by ‘ticking boxes’. Quality in a broader context has many meanings depending on customers, ranging from luxury and merit to excellence, good value for money or convenience and even practicality. A generic definition of quality is simply ‘meeting the customer requirements’, but this has been expressed in many ways, e.g.;
- ‘conformance to requirements’ — Crosby (1992)
- ‘fitness for use’ — Juran (1989)
- ‘quality should be aimed the needs of the consumer’ — Deming (1986)
- ‘the total composite product and service characteristics of the organisation to meet the expectation by the customer’ — Feigenbaum (1983)
- ‘the totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied need’ — ISO 9000:2000.
If we can’t find a comprehensive definition of project quality we can’t assess its efficacy and therefore we can’t apply it effectively to deliver successful projects. Only Feigenbaum’s definition seems to cover the ‘total’ concept of quality covering product, service (conformance) and organisation. However, the consistency of conformance is not explicit here. Therefore the definition of quality should be rephrased as:
Definition of Project Quality
Basu (2004) proposes a three-dimensional model of quality is shown in diagrammatic form in Figure 2.1.
When an organisation develops and defines its quality strategy, it is important to share a common definition of quality so that each department within a company can work towards a common objective. The product quality should contain defined attributes of both numeric specifications and perceived dimensions. The process quality, whether it relates to manufacturing or service operations, should also contain some defined criteria of acceptable service level so that the conformity of the output can be validated against these criteria. Perhaps the most important determinant of how we perceive sustainable quality is the functional and holistic role we fulfil within the organisation. It is only when an organisation begins to change its approach to a holistic culture, emphasising a single set of numbers based on transparent measurement with senior management commitment, that the ‘organisation quality’ germinates. We have compiled a set of key organisation quality dimensions (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Basu’s organisation quality dimensions
We are more familiar with the expectations and perceptions of quality related to product and services that we experience in our day-to-day life, for example when we buy a motor car or an airline ticket. Table 2.2 shows a comparison of quality characteristics of a project with those generally applied to a consumer product (car) or a service (flight):
Table 2.2 Quality characteristics for a project, a car and a flight
We now need to substantiate the above statements. In the following sections of this chapter the rationale of these three dimensions to define project quality is supported by the published data and reflective analysis. The analysis also identifies the gaps in current thinking related to project quality.
Dimensions of Quality
According to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), ‘dimension’ is an attribute of measurable form that may be seen as characterising an abstract thing. ‘Quality’ is a special feature, entity or characteristic by which a thing is considered in thinking or speaking of its nature, condition or properties. In the context of this research a definition of quality as an entity is supported by ‘dimensions’, while ‘attributes’ are indicators or components of dimensions. This approach is agreement with the publications on dimensions of quality (Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry, 1984; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;Arunasalam, Paulson and Wallace, 2003). There are many different dimensions and definitions of quality that have been well expressed in literature related to operations and to a limited extent in literature related to project management. This section will present these selected classifications and support a three-dimensional definition of quality (seeFigure 2.1) to reflect its appropriate application in project management.
Two of the most quoted dimensions of quality in operations management are given by the quality dimensions developed by Garvin (1984) and Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984) (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.3 Dimensions of quality
Garvin’s (1984) product quality dimensions
|
Parasuraman et al.’s (1984) service quality dimensions
|
|---|---|
Performance refers to the efficiency (e.g. return on investment) with which the product achieves its intended purpose.
|
Tangibles are the physical appearance of the service facility and people. service reliability deals with the ability of the service provider to perform dependably.
|
Features are attributes that supplement the product’s basic performance, e.g. tinted glass windows in a car.
|
Responsiveness is the willingness of the service provider to be prompt in delivering the service.
|
Reliability refers to the capability of the product to perform consistently over its life cycle.
|
Assurance relates to the ability of the service provider to inspire trust and confidence.
|
conformance refers to meeting the specifications of the product, usually defined by numeric values.
|
Empathy refers to the ability of the service provider to demonstrate care and individual attention to the customer.
|
Durability is the degree to which a product withstands stress without failure.
|
Availability is the ability to provide service at the right time and place.
|
serviceability is used to denote the ease of repair.
|
Professionalism encompasses the impartial and ethical characteristics of the service provider.
|
Aesthetics are sensory characteristics such as a look, sound, taste and smell. Perceived quality is based upon customer opinion.
|
Timeliness refers to the delivery of service within the agreed lead time. completeness addresses the delivery of the order in full.
|
Pleasantness simply means the good manners and politeness of the service provider.
|
The dimensions of quality expounded by Garvin (1984) appear to relate primarily to the quality of the product. Service quality as explained by Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984) is perhaps even more difficult to define or measure as compared to the definition of product quality, because it also contains abstract dimensions such as empathy, pleasantness and assurance. This was later enhanced and developed by Zeithmal, Parasuraman and Berry (1990) as the SERVQUAL methodology, which identified gaps between the perceptions and expectations for the dimensions of service quality. Cronin and Taylor (1992) further extended the measurement of the dimensions of service quality in SERVQUAL, proposed a performance-based scale of measuring service quality and named the instrument as SERVPERF. There is evidence of academic research to assess service quality in various service industries (Arunasalam, Paulson and Wallace, 2003;Parkdil and Harwood, 2005; Gaur and Agarwal, 2006). An empirical study by Jain and Gupta (2004) concluded that because of its psychometric soundness, SERVPERF should be the preferred choice to compare service quality across industries.
Definitions of Project Quality
The definition of quality is underpinned by dimensions of quality. A definition of quality in operations management containing two dimensions (design quality and process quality) is taken from Ray Wild’s Operations management (2002, p. 644) as shown below:
Wild’s definition of quality
The quality of a product or service is the degree to which it satisfies customer requirements.
It is influenced by:
Design quality: the degree to which the specification of the product or service satisfies customers’ requirements.
Process quality: The degree to which the product or service, which is made available to the customer, conforms to specification.
The list of quality dimensions by both Garvin (1984) and Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984) are widely cited (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Arunasalam, Paulson and Wallace, 2003). However, one problem with a large number of dimensions is that of communication. It is not easy to devise a strategic plan on quality based on many dimensions, as proposed by Garvin (1984) and Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984), as these could be interpreted differently by varying departments. Wild’s definition with two dimensions of design and process quality, however, provides a broad framework to develop a company-specific quality strategy. Turner (2002) also agrees with Wild’s (2002)dimensions of product quality and process quality.
Nonetheless, one important dimension of quality is not clearly visible in the above models: the quality of the organisation and people-related issues. This is a fundamental cornerstone of the quality of a holistic process and an essential requirement of an approved quality assessment scheme such as EFQM (European Foundation of Quality Management). It is the people that make things happen.
In the Kano Model of customer satisfaction in operations management, Noriaki Kano (1996) defines three attributes to quality: basic needs, performance needs and excitement needs. Kano explains that to be competitive, products and services must flawlessly execute all three attributes of quality.
In the initial success model of DeLone and McLean (1992) related to information systems, ‘organisational impact’ was recognised as the measure of effectiveness success, while ‘systems quality’ measures technical success and ‘information quality’ measures semantic success and user satisfaction. Although the authors appear to focus on success criteria in information management rather than the dimensions of quality enabling the achievement of those criteria, it could be argued that in this model systems quality relates to design quality, information quality to process quality and organisational impacts to organisation quality.
In their updated model, DeLone and McLean (2003) (see Figure 2.2) include ‘service quality’ to combine ‘individual’ and ‘organisational impact’ into a single variable, ‘net benefits’. It appears that the authors, perhaps inadvertently, have introduced the difficulties of interpreting multidimensional aspects of ‘use’ and ‘user specification’. These features may arguably be more specific to information systems. However, in a broader context, service quality appears to contain the ingredients of organisational impact or organisation quality. In turn it is easier to interpret the sustainability of service through user satisfaction to incorporate user specification, thus leading to net benefits.
Grover, Jeong and Segars (1996) extended the initial model of DeLone and McLean (1992)and used an alternative theoretically based perspective (the theory of organisational effectiveness) to build a construct for information systems (IS) effectiveness. This IS effectiveness framework of Grover, Jeong and Segars (1996) complements the IS success model of DeLone and McLean (1992) and at the same time suggests an area of further extension, namely organisational impacts and market impacts.
Deming (1986) believes that quality in operations management is everyone’s business and says that to find the best way means getting the facts, collecting data, setting standard procedures, measuring results and getting prompt and accurate feedback of results so as to eliminate variations to the standard. He sees this as a continuous cycle. Deming emphasises that people can only be ‘won over’ if there is trust at all levels. This means that management is prepared to allow and encourage employees to take responsibility, and that employees are prepared to accept that responsibility. Employee participation, through understanding objectives, processes and contributing through improvement suggestions, is an important part of the Deming philosophy required to sustain results.
Arguably Juran was the first ‘guru’ to emphasise that quality in operations management was achieved by communication. The trilogy Juran suggests for quality comprises planning, control and improvement (Juran, 1989). His approach includes an annual plan for quality improvement and cost-effectiveness, and continuous education on quality. Juran’s foundations are still valid and are embedded within Six Sigma, Lean Sigma and Fit Sigma (Basu and Wright, 2003) philosophies. He argues, and few would disagree, that inspection at the end of the line, post-production, is too late to prevent errors. Juran says that quality monitoring needs to be performed during the production process to ensure that mistakes do not occur, and that the system is operating effectively. Juran adds that the role of upper management is more than making policies; they have to show leadership through action — in other words, they have to ‘walk the talk’ and not just give orders and set targets. Juran propagates that quality is not free and that investment is needed in training, often including statistical analysis, at all levels of the organisation.
Feigenbaum (1983) is recognised for his work in raising quality awareness in operations management in the USA. The term total quality management originated from his bookTotal quality control. Feigenbaum states that total quality control has an organisation-wide impact. It involves three aspects: first, managerial and technical implementation of customer-oriented quality activities as a prime responsibility of general management. Secondly, it comprises the mainline operations of marketing, engineering, production, industrial relations, finance and service. Finally, there is the quality-control function itself. He adds that a quality system is the agreed, company-wide operating work structure, documented in integrated technical and managerial procedures, for guiding the coordinated actions of the people, the machines and company-wide communications. This should be executed in the most practical ways with the focus on customer quality satisfaction. According to Dale (2007), Feigenbaum’s most important contribution to quality was to recognise that the three major categories of the cost of quality are appraisal, prevention and cost of failure. Arguably another important contribution was in the definition of ‘total’ quality covering product, service (conformance) and organisation.
Crosby (1992) is noted for saying — in an apparent contradiction of Juran (1989) — that quality in operations management is free. Indeed Crosby even produced a book with this very title in 1979. He emphasises cultural and behavioural issues ahead of the statistical approach of Deming and Feigenbaum. According to Crosby, if staff have the right attitude, know what the standards are and do things right first time, every time, the cost of conformance will be free. The cumulative effect is that motivated workers will go further than just ‘doing things right’. Instead, they will detect problems in advance, be proactive in correcting situations and ultimately will even be quick to suggest improvements. Crosby concludes that workers should not be blamed for errors, but rather that management should take the lead and the workers will follow. Crosby’s definition of quality (‘conformance to requirements’) is easily refuted: if requirements are wrong, then failure is certain.
There is one important dimension of quality that is clearly visible in the quality concepts of Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum and Crosby, and that is the quality dimension of the organisation. This in turn is the dimension of sustainable or ongoing quality which is expected to be delivered continuously to customers, and is supported by the whole organisation. It is also a fundamental cornerstone of the quality of a holistic process, and an essential requirement of an approved quality assessment scheme such as theEuropean Foundation of Quality Management (2003).
In the environment of project management, the definitions and dimensions of quality appear to be less pointed. The guidelines in the public domain comprise the Body of Knowledge (Association of Project Management, 2006), a Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge (Project Management Institute, 2004, 2008), ISO 10006 (2003),PRINCE2 (2002, 2009), and BS 6079 (British Standards Institution, 2002). The Body of Knowledge (BOK) (Association of Project Management, 2006) states that ‘quality applies to everything in project management: commercial, organisation, people, control, technical, etc.’. That’s fine, but it begs the question: what is quality? The BOK however recognises the definition of TQM as ‘what the client really wants, defining the organisation’s mission, measuring throughout the whole process how well performance meets the required standards’. The definition of TQM involving the total organisation in the implementation of continuous improvement in a project environment was first described in Levitt and Nann (1994), and the BOK seems to have a passing reference to TQM.
In the PMBOK (2004, 2008) the definition of project quality is also unclear. Here quality is defined as ‘ the level to which product or service meets its specification or meets the expectations of the users’. However, Section 8 of the document is dedicated to project quality management comprising quality planning, quality assurance and quality control. Furthermore, in Section 8.1, the document identifies which quality standards are relevant to the project and determines how best to satisfy them. It describes how the project management team will implement its quality policy with the aid of a formal quality plan. Here, quality seems to relate to ‘standards’. These benchmarks are then inserted into the quality plan with a process that can identify whether or not the team is managing the project in accordance with the quality policy that has been established.
ISO 10006, Quality management — guidelines to quality in project management(International Standards Organisation, 2003), claims to provide ‘guidance on quality system elements, concepts and practices for which the implementation is important to, and has an impact on, the achievement of quality in project management’. However, the application of this document is more likely to have the opposite effect. In fact, it identifies virtually the same set of project management processes and knowledge areas as PMBOK (2004, 2008). There is no definition of quality and moreover, no quality management process. Pharro (2002) comments, ‘The guide (ISO 10006) focuses on the standard of project management and does not cover the doing of the activities necessary to complete the project.’
PRINCE2 (2002, 2009) is a project management methodology owned and maintained by the UK Government. It has grown organically to be adopted by both private and public organisations. The document (PRINCE2, 2002) identifies ‘quality in a project environment’ as a PRINCE2 component and ‘quality review technique’ as a PRINCE2 technique. The definition of quality, though not plain, is stated as ‘its ability to show that it meets expectations or satisfies stated needs, requirements or specifications’. This methodology presumes that the project will be managed under the umbrella of a published Quality Management System (QMS) conforming to ISO 9001. QMS in PRINCE2 appears to be similar to a quality plan indicated in ISO 10006 and PMBOK. There is no unmistakable definition of quality in the document and the link between ‘quality in a project environment’ and the ‘quality review technique’ is also opaque. However, the guidelines for the formal quality review in a project are useful and comprise three steps:
- Preparation: where the project deliverable or product is measured against quality criteria contained in the product description and question lists are created.
- Review: where the product is ‘walked through’ against question lists and follow-up actions are agreed.
- Follow-up: where the identified errors in the product are fixed, agreed and signed off.
In the new edition of PRINCE2 (2009) quality is described as a theme to define and implement the means by which the project will create and verify products that are fit for purpose. Quality is defined as ‘the totality of features and inherent or assigned characteristics of a product, person, process, service and/or system that bear on its ability to show that it meets expectations or satisfies stated needs, requirements or specification’. The application of these guidelines is discussed in Chapter 4.
BS6079 (British Standards Institution, 2002) is a Guide to project management. The document identifies key stages of the project life cycle, thus the project management processes are divided into two parts: project planning and project control. It appears to be most suitable for large engineering projects with the project manager in full command. It is not prescriptive regarding project management techniques and there is no direct definition of quality in BS 6079. A definition of quality is also missing in BS 6079 Part 2: Vocabulary (British Standards Institution, 2000). As regards the quality plan, the document refers to ISO 10006 and thus suffers from similar weaknesses in the area of quality management (Pharro, 2002).
Turner (2002) defines quality in the context of project management and this in turn appears to agree with Wild’s (2002) dimensions of product quality and process quality.Turner (2002) also indicates that the right ‘attitude’ is an important element of achieving the project success. It could be argued that attitude is people-related and falls within the domain of organisation quality. However, a passing reference to attitude does require further clarification and enhancement. The published papers in academic journals are also unsatisfactory regarding the definition and dimension of project quality. Grude, Turner and Wateridge (1996) reported that ‘quality management received no mention until the 1990s’.
Bubshait (1994) appears to be one of the early authors to publish a definition of project quality and emphasise owner involvement in project quality. ‘Owner’ is not defined by the author, but it is likely to relate to the sponsor or clients funding the project. It is to be noted that quality characteristics expounded by Bubshait (1994) also include factors for the ongoing outcome or sustainability of the project. Although it is not clear from the results of the survey, the author concludes that ‘owner involvement is essential to project quality’.
Rounce (1998) attempts to define the ‘plethora of reasons’ contributing to architectural design management problems and the adverse effects arising from lack of quality in the design management process. Quality in the design process has been defined as ‘meeting agreed requirements or conformance to requirements’. The author also puts forward indicators of quality in design management. It is indicative that in the context of project quality, Rounce (1998) also emphasises conformance to requirements (process quality) and appears to recognise ‘quality to all members’ (organisation quality).
Tennant and Roberts (2001) have recognised the role of quality management in the speed and effectiveness of product development projects in the Rover Group in the UK. The authors seem to indicate the definition of project quality as given with a passing reference to Feigenbaum’s concept of new design control as the establishment of performance quality and reliability quality of the product. The robustness of the concept quality in this paper is difficult to assess, although the demise of the Rover Group in the UK may not be a good testament to the recommendations therein.
Summary Analysis
A closer examination of the relevant literature reveals that the focus of quality is more visible in the domain of operations management compared to project management.Table 2.4 summarises the key findings of the literature on the dimensions and definition of quality.
It is indicative from the above analysis that quality experts support the concept of three dimensions of quality in the environment of operations management. These comprise standards (product quality), conformance (process quality) and sustainability (organisation quality). In broad terms, Garvin (1984), Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984) and Wild (2002) focus more on product quality and process quality. It could be argued that intangible attributes of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF (such as responsiveness, empathy and professionalism) as identified by Parasuraman, Zeithamel and Berry (1984)and Cronin and Taylor (1992) are people-related and could be linked to organisation quality.
In the environment of project management there is a strong emphasis on design specifications (product quality) and project methodology (process quality) and some recognition (e.g. Rounce, 1998) of ‘quality to all members’ (organisation quality). Turner (2002) identified design quality and process quality as two dimensions of project quality (similar to Wild, 2002) as in operations management. However, the published project management standards and guidelines (e.g. PMBOK, ISO 10006, BS6079 and also PRINCE2) all lack a clear definition of the dimensions of quality. As discussed in Chapter 2, although stakeholder management, which is a key component of organisation quality, has been recognised and practiced as a fundamental process of project management it is not yet embedded within the culture of managing project quality (McElroy and Mills, 2000).
Table 2.4 Key findings of literature on the dimensions and definition of project quality
Source
|
Key findings
|
Domain
|
|---|---|---|
Dimensions of ‘product quality’ — performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability and perceived quality
|
Operations
| |
Dimensions of ‘service quality’ — tangibles, service reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, availability, professionalism, timeliness, completeness
SERVQUAL methodology — assessment of service quality
SERVPERF methodology — assessment of service quality
|
Operations
Operations
Operations
| |
Design quality — specifications Process quality — conformance
|
Operations
| |
Three attributes of quality (customer satisfaction) — basic needs, performance needs and excitement needs
|
Operations
| |
Information quality — process quality system quality — design quality service quality — organisational impact Extended DeLone and McLean model to organisation effectiveness
|
Information systems Information systems
| |
Continuing quality improvement cycle Employee participation to sustain improvement
|
Operations
| |
Annual quality improvement plan, cost effectiveness, communication and continuous education
|
Operations
| |
Coined the phrase ‘Total Quality Control’ Total quality involves organisation wide impact
|
Operations
| |
Crosby (1979)
|
Cost conformance would be free achieved by quality assurance by staff attitudes and skills training
|
Operations
|
‘Quality applies to everything in project management: commercial, organisation, people, control, technical etc.’. No clear definition of project quality
|
Projects
| |
ISO 10006 (International Standards Organisation, 2003)
|
Identifies quality plan as a document specifying general procedures and associated resources but not related to project phases. No clear definition of project quality
|
Projects
|
BS6079 (British standards institution, 2002)
|
Identifies key stages of project life cycle and refers to ISO 10006 for quality plan. No clear definition of project quality
|
Projects
|
Identifies quality in a project environment and assumes quality management system to conform to ISO 9001. No clear definition of project quality
|
Projects
| |
owner involvement in project quality characterised by conformance and longer-lasting organisation criteria
|
Projects
| |
Suggests quality in design management and identifies conformance to requirements and ‘quality to all members’
|
Projects
| |
Design quality and process quality in projects and right ‘attitude’ for success
|
Projects
| |
Quality management as conformance to project management policy (PMP) document
|
Projects Product development
|
Conclusions
It is evident from the above analysis that in the environment of project management, the definitions and dimensions of quality appear to be less clear-cut. In the Body of Knowledge by the APM (2000), the definition of quality is rather broad (‘quality applies to everything in project management’) but it recognises the dimension of TQM as ‘what the client really wants, defining the organisation’s mission, measuring throughout the whole process how well performance meets the required standards’. This is indicative of organisation quality. In the PMBOK (2004), the definition of project quality is also not clear, although Section 8 of the document is dedicated to project quality management comprising quality planning, quality assurance and quality control. Also in PRINCE2, there is no clear definition of quality in the document. Additionally, the link between ‘quality in a project environment’ and ‘quality review technique’ is not clear. The guidelines in ISO 10006 are disappointing, although the document is closer to PMBOK. The emphasis of quality in official standards appears to be on design quality (guidelines to quality systems) and process quality (conforming to standards).
The papers by Bubshait (1994) and Rounce (1998) are not pointed regarding the definitions and dimensions of quality, but they indicate recognition of organisation quality. For example, Bubshait’s quality requirements from an owners’ viewpoint include operability and maintainability, and Rounce suggested ‘meaning of quality known to all members’ as an indicator of project quality, even at the design stage of the life cycle. The findings on organisation effectiveness (Crawford and Turner, 2008; Jamieson and Morris, 2008) also underline the role of organisation culture in the governance of successful projects. It is also evident that, albeit primarily in the domain of operations management,Deming (1986), Juran (1989) and Feigenbaum (1983) are proponents of organisation quality.
On the basis of the above analysis, the first proposition has been derived as follows:
PROPOSITION 1: There exists a new dimension of quality in projects beyond the product and process quality and that is organisation quality.
The detailed analysis of the gaps in the current thinking has clearly identified organisation quality as an essential component of project quality to supplement the other two dimensions in practice, viz, design quality and process quality (Turner, 2002). Therefore the dimensions of project quality as illustrated in Figure 2.1 are supported by the analysis in this chapter.
On the basis of the above conclusions the following definitions of project quality is recommended:
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق