When we assess quality we typically look at requirements. Was the application deployed to specifications? Can it perform at the anticipated level? Were data successfully migrated? Simply put, we do our best to quantify if the end-product is “good.”
In this post we will look at other dimensions of quality. Not only must the outcome be “good,” but the means of achieving the outcome must comply with standards or regulations, achieve broader goals and objectives, and have been executed in a manner consistent with an organization’s culture. In other words, “good” is only sufficient if also done “right.”
Defining the Regulatory Framework
Every project must navigate a set of regulations – some self-imposed, others to be compliant with financial or legal standards. A project often allows us to reestablish and realign around this framework – but only if we make a concerted effort to define it early in a project and create a baseline against which work will be measured.
A common task to apply this concept is in ensuring data is compliant with legal and financial standards. Before we begin mapping data we should document legal standards protecting privacy such as HIPAA and COPPA, as well as financial standards such as PCI-compliance. Once defined, we can evaluate our data against these standards and identify any minor deviations that need correction.
For example, on a recent project we documented the common regulations we would adhere to. The exercise was expected to be something of a formality, but once we looked at the data we identified potentially sensitive information had found its way in. We discussed application of the framework – both the letter and spirit of the laws – and decided not to migrate this data. Had we not broadened our definition of quality, we simply would have mapped the data and measured successful conversion by the raw numbers.
Measuring Progress Against Goals and Objectives
Every organization begins a project with a larger set of goals and objectives. Some of these are fully articulated. Others are implied or intended, but may not translate from the vision of the Sponsor to the application by the Project Team. Without such translation, the work is unlikely to achieve the intended outcomes or be possible to measure.
On a recent project, one of the larger objectives stated at the Executive Level was “transformative change.” The intention was to leverage the deployment of a new CRM system to take a significant leap in technology and also to substantially transform business processes to see both greater efficiency in operations and increases in fundraising outcomes.
Where we have run into problems is in articulating what “transformative change” implies. The implementation partner on the project insisted the project was on schedule and moving towards the next major milestone: sign-off on functional and technical requirements. However, the team was frustrated that the level of discussion was mostly capturing current state requirements, not the target (transformative) state that was implied in the overarching objective. We had a disconnect in the definition of quality.
In this instance, we looked to the design session schedules to insert additional rounds of deliberation. We used these sessions to elevate the conversation to a more strategic-level and look for opportunities rather than just understand current state. We added strategic sessions to discuss technology and the downstream impact of the architecture. Though much of this was baked into the plan, it was not until we saw the results of the early conversations that we realized we had a quality problem. Our outputs were on schedule but were falling short on meeting overall goals and objectives.
Appreciating Org Culture
Culture includes the social and ethical boundaries within which the project is to be executed. This may include everything from expected working hours to overarching ethical standards. Or, it may represent how you are expected to communicate both with the internal staff and external partners.
Expectations around work hours demonstrate how culture directly impacts project estimates. On a recent project I plotted anticipated hours over the course of a 9-month project and found we had a 12-month timeline. But, after speaking with the project team and learning that most arrived at the office by 8 am and regularly left at 6 pm, I re-baselined some of the resource-constrained periods with an extended day – and my timeline fell back inside 9 months. Setting aside the impact on quality-of-life the long nights and weekends can have over an extended project, it was clear that the organization culture was a direct impact on project execution. Had this been an organization that strictly adhered to a 40-hour work-week, extending outside regular hours would have been seen as a violation, and ultimately would have required renegotiating the timeline.
Similarly, communication expectations can directly impact work effort. Highly deliberative organizations may require time to discuss and form consensus. Highly transparent organizations may require regular communication of status and wide distribution of information to move stakeholders forward. Even if the same conclusions could have been arrived at sooner and with a smaller feedback loop, the process would have fallen short of expectations.
How we manage the work can be a more significant factor than the outcomes of the work itself. As we have said, meeting requirements are only part of this equation. We must also be sure to meet those requirements in a manner consistent with organization expectations.
Summary & Conclusions
Quality is multi-dimensional. Your project must operate consistent with regulations and standards specific to your organization. Larger goals and objectives need to be taken into account, far beyond those that simply reflect specifications have been met. The project must appreciate organization culture and conduct the work of the project in a manner consistent with the expectations of the organizations. As we prepare a quality management plan we must take this wider view to do good, right.