What are the most common mistakes in setting task quality standards?

Yes agree, Stakeholder engagement plan should be at place from start of the project. Which information need to be shared with whom based on aap-I matrix give clear picture of commutation protocol. All information sharing hierarchy at place from first day of the project.

Not involving key stakeholders, including clients, end-users, or project sponsors, in the process of setting quality standards can result in misalignment with their expectations. It is imperative to engage relevant stakeholders early in the process to understand their quality expectations and incorporate their input into the standards.

The common issues include not communicating with stakeholders at the right time or avoiding conversations with them due to a problem. This often happens because the project manager anticipates that the current progress and quality will not be accepted. For example, they might avoid stakeholders who are responsible for internal approval.

Ambiguity: Unclear and vague standards lead to different interpretations among team members, causing inconsistent outcomes. Rushing the Process: Hasty definition of standards may overlook crucial aspects, compromising overall quality. Unrealistic Expectations: Setting standards beyond achievable levels can demoralize the team and hinder productivity. Neglecting Stakeholder Input: Failing to involve key stakeholders results in incomplete understanding of requirements. Lack of Continuous Review: Overlooking regular review and adjustment leads to outdated standards that don't adapt to evolving project dynamics or industry best practices.

Based on my experience, a prevalent error is neglecting to include pertinent stakeholders in the establishment of task quality standards. When key stakeholders are not consulted, there is a risk of overlooking their expectations and requirements, potentially resulting in misalignment and dissatisfaction with the final quality. While receiving numerous feedback and inputs may seem challenging, it is precisely intended to prevent potential disagreements about quality standards in later stages.

In my experience, a common pitfall is the failure to synchronize quality standards with project objectives. Ensuring that the established standards directly contribute to the overarching project goals is paramount. Without this alignment, there's a risk of directing attention towards aspects of quality that might not be integral to attaining project success. To overcome this, I make it a point to regularly revisit and reassess the connection between quality standards and project objectives throughout the project lifecycle. This proactive approach ensures that our quality efforts remain purposeful and aligned with the evolving needs of the project.

The most common issues identified from lessons learned about this part include not having enough resources or having resources in another country that lacks sufficient experience regarding the deliverables. Additionally, issues arise when the project discipline manager fails to communicate updates and client feedback on time or does not review the completed work before sharing it with the client to ensure it aligns with the deliverables and meets the required level of detail and quality. Having a qualified person to audit, coordinate, and close any scope gaps is key to success. Also, use tier-one companies to ensure the risk is reduced

Neglecting to document quality standards is a common oversight. Clear documentation is essential for communication and reference. Without it, there's a higher risk of misunderstandings and inconsistencies in applying quality standards. To overcome this, I've implemented a structured documentation process in my projects, creating a centralized repository for easy access. This approach enhances communication and provides a consistent reference, reducing the likelihood of misinterpretation and inconsistency, contributing to smoother project execution.

It's crucial for quality standards to be adaptable, allowing them to accommodate shifts and updates that occur throughout the project lifecycle. To address this, I proactively assess and update quality standards in response to any modifications in project parameters. This ensures that the standards remain pertinent and aligned with the evolving needs of the project. Additionally, I prioritize timely communication of these changes to the relevant stakeholders to maintain transparency and collective understanding. This way, the team can adjust their focus and efforts in accordance with the updated quality standards, fostering a more agile and responsive project environment.

A very important point - "Lessons Learned". This is a dynamic list with items coming in and going out. Try to keep new items as few as possible (done a good job) and eliminate as many items as possible from the list (learned from the previous issues and they are not happening anymore). I call this exercise "using previous experience". Record not only major issues but also small ones. This will help keep track of everything.

Treating quality standards as static and not incorporating opportunities for continuous improvement can hinder the evolution of processes and best practices. So we should regularly review and update quality standards based on feedback, lessons learned, and changing project requirements. Encourage a culture of continuous improvement.

A common response to quality issues being noted is to perform retraining. It is worth examining how retraining will improve the quality and close the gap.

Neglecting to draw lessons from quality issues represents a substantial oversight. Whenever quality issues surface, it becomes imperative to delve into comprehensive assessments aimed at unraveling the root causes. Implementing corrective actions based on these assessments is critical for rectifying immediate concerns and preventing recurrence. Overlooking the opportunity to leverage these experiences for continuous improvement can lead to a repetitive cycle of mistakes, ultimately jeopardizing the quality of tasks. Embracing a culture of continuous improvement involves not only resolving issues as they arise but also extracting valuable insights to fortify future processes and enhance overall task quality.

In my experience, sometime over commitment & too stringent deadlines leads to detriotion of quality. Organizational standards and quality procedures were not followed properly due to over pressure of task completion. Overall it leads to bad task managment and exwcution.

When setting task quality standards, several common mistakes that people make: Not understanding the process from beginning to end; this can lead to making the wrong decisions and not being able to identify areas for improvement. Not involving the right people. It’s important to involve people who have a good understanding of the process and can provide valuable insights. Not having a clear definition of what constitutes quality; this can lead to confusion and inconsistency in the standards. Not measuring the right things; to ensure that the standards are effective. Not having a system in place to monitor and improve the standards; this can lead to the standards becoming outdated and ineffective over time.

For many projects, quantitative standards are the only standards set. However, qualitative data is often more informative and valuable to the people involved in the project - staff, volunteers, end-users.

What is the most important - Quality or Delivery date? Different project team members will answer differently - Project Controls or QC Manager? This is a real challenge for the PM and the entire project team to maintain high-quality standards and keep the delivery date.