Project quality-control management: a conceptual framework

Project quality-control management: a conceptual framework A M Yaseen and A F El-Marashly

In developing countries, project managers suffer from the vagueness of quality control management. This is because the subject is ill structured. This paper is intended to introduce a conceptual framework of quality control management, leading to a better understanding of the problem. Keywords: project ceptual framework,

management, quality developing countries

control,

con-

Developing countries are embarking on intensive development plans and programmes. The indigenous implementation of these programmes, from study phase of the projects to the start-up of operation, is growing rapidly after having relied completely in the past on foreign expertise. One of the major problems facing project managers in these countries is the lack of experience in the quality control management functions, i.e. managing the implementation of the project within a certain quality level conforming with predetermined specifications. The other two major management responsibilities, i.e. time and cost control, are to a great extent exercised satisfactorily. The necessity of managing quality control activity in developing countries is a very crucial concern and if it is neglected may lead to a problematic situation in the future. An overview of the different application fields can easily prove this fact. The reason behind the problem, in the authors’ opinion, lies in the absence of a well structured framework on the subject. The intention of this paper is to introduce a conceptual framework of the scope and structure of the quality control management functions

addressed basically to the project managers in developing countries. This elaboration could lead to a better understanding of the subject and hopefully may provide the opportunity for improved application. In addition, the mutual cooperation between developed and developing countries can be better conducted in the context of implementing management contracts, regarding quality control responsibilities of all the participating parties - either foreign and/or national. STRUCTURING ACTIVITY

Quality control of the system could three main parameters, namely

International

Bank,

35 Abdel

Khalek

Sarwat

Stret,

Cairo,

Egypt

84

0263-7863/89/0200847

$03.00 @ 1989 Butterworth

be composed

0 specifications, as reference for quality, l system, to be quality controlled, l quality control activity, to be conducted fulfillment.

of

for quality

These three parameters are interrelated as illustrated in Figure 1. This leads to the existence of three relations, namely 0 system 0 quality 0 system

specifications, control specifications, quality control.

ELABORATION PARAMETERS

Specifications It could l

Arab

QUALITY-CONTROL

OF QUALITY-CONTROL

(specs)

be broken

down into three

types of specs:

Functional specs (FS) which indicates the objective or purpose of any part of the system. FS answers the question: Why?

& Co (Publishers)

Ltd

Project

Management

Quality

control

specifications

System specifications

System quality control

System

Figure I. Quality interrelationships

control

main

parameters

and their

0 Structural specs (SS) which describes the components of the system and their relationships. SS answers the question: What? l Technological specs (TS) which details the methods and means of conducting the work. TS answers the question: How?

Figure 2. Quality Quality

control cube control

System The system intended to be quality controlled - in any phase of project development cycle - is generally composed of three parts:

Input

Input QC

+

0 input 0 process 0 output

Process

QC

Process +

Quality control (QC) This activity actions: 0 measuring l comparing 0 correcting

is generally

composed

of three

successive

Output

output

QC

+

(with reference

specs)

Figure 3. System

These three parameters after being detailed could be structured in the ‘quality control cube’ as shown in Figure 2. From Figures I and 2 it should be noted that the quality control activity is illustrated in three faces of the quality control cube: Face A represents the system quality and contains three segments (i) input QC, (ii) process QC, (iii) output QC.

Vol 7 No 2 May 1989

control

(Figure

3)

quulity control

Each of these three segments successive actions. namely measuring, comparing quality (3 cells), measuring, comparing quality (3 cells), measuring, comparing quality (3 cells).

is broken

and

down into three

correcting

and

correcting

and

correcting

the the the

input process output

The other two faces of the cube (faces B, C in Figure 2) are the two references for conducting the quality control activity presented in face A of the cube.

85

Specifications

1 Studies

I 7

2

Design

Input

Input

1

specs 3

+

Contracting

and

procurement

E 2 ?. II)

Process

Process

specs 1 4

+

lmplementatlon output

Output

specs

+

Figure

4. System specifications

I

4

I

Correcting

Correcting

Figure

specs

l 4 Comparing

Comparing

c .m

Project

development

phases

I

I+ z 5 6 ”

6.

functional, structural output (3 cells).

and

technological

specs

of

specs

Face

(Figure

G

C represents

the specs of the quality 5) and is composed of three segments:

control

4 Measuring

Measuring

(i) measuring (ii) comparing (iii) correcting

specs

specs, specs, specs.

Each of these three segments subspecs, namely: functional, measuring functional, comparing functional, correcting

L

Specifications

Figure

Face

5.

Quality control specifications

B represents

composed

of three

system specs segments:

(Figure

4) and

is

(i) input specs, (ii) process specs, (iii) output specs. Each of these three segments three subspecs, namely: l l

86

functional, structural input (3 cells), functional, structural process (3 cells),

is broken

down again into

and

technological

specs

of

and

technological

specs

of

DEVELOPING

structural (3 cells), structural (3 cells), structural (3 cells).

THE

is broken

down into three

and

technological

specs

of

and

technological

specs

of

and

technological

specs

of

QC CUBE

The QC cube is developed in parallel with the project development phases. These phases are presented in Figure 6. In the first three phases of the project development cycle (i.e. study, design and contracting & procurement), the specs of both the system and QC (faces B and C of the QC cube) are developed, while in the fourth phase (implementation) the system QC (face A of the QC cube) is activated. Hence the following specs are sequentially indicated and developed in the successive project phases as follows:

Project

Management

Figure 7. System and QC specs Study phase. determined:

In this phase,

of study phase

the

following

specs

Figure 8. System and QC specs of design phase are

0 specs of system output, functional specs of the whole system, l specs of the correcting action of QC, l functional specs of QC. l

These four groups of specs are illustrated (faces B, C of QC cube). Design phase. The following this phase: l l l l

in Figure

specs are determined

7

in

specs of the system process, structural specs of the whole system, specs of the comparing action of QC, structural specs of QC.

These four groups of specs are illustrated (faces B, C of QC cube).

in Figure

Contracting & procurement phase, In this phase, following specs are determined:

8

the

0 specs of system input, l technological specs of the whole system, l specs of measuring action of QC, l technological specs of QC.

Figure 9. System and procurement phase

QC specs

of contracting

&

The participants’ responsibility related to the project development phases is shown in Table 1.

These four groups are shown in Figure 9. Before proceeding to the implementation phase, the participants’ responsibility regarding specs notified in faces B, C of QC cube should be determined. The participants involved are

Implementation phase. In the implementation phase, the following QC actions of the system (project) implementation are taking place and the responsibility is distributed among the three participants as follows:

0 owner/client designer/consultant 0 contractor/supplier

0 owner/client o QC of system output o correcting action of the system

l

Vol 7 No 2 May 1989

87

Table 2. Participants implementation

designer/consultant n QC of system process action of the system 2 comparing 0 contractor/supplier o QC of system input 17 measuring action of the system l

Participants QC subactivities (face A of QC cube)

These responsibilities are presented in Table 2 (face A of QC cube). The responsibilities of the three participants regarding the specs (Table 1) and the system quality control (Table 2) are summed up in Figure IO. In this figure, the step-by-step built up of the QC cube in parallel with the project development phases is illustrated. The responsibility of each participant regarding the specs (faces R, C of QC cube) and both Table 1. Participants

responsibility

Participants’ Owner/ client

Project phases

* * *

Studies Design Contracting Tmplementation

*

r

responsibility

Measuring Comparing Correcting Measuring Comparing Correcting Measuring Comparing Correcting

Owner/ client

input input input process process process output output output

of system QC

responsibility Designer/ consultant

Contractor/ supplier

M

D M

M

M

M

M D M

M M M D

M M

of the specs Dominant and mutual responsibilities of each of the three participants regarding the QC subactions implementation arc differentiated by letters D and M.

responsibility Designer/ consultant

Contractor/ supplier

dominant and mutual responsibilities of the system QC (face A of QC cube), are also sequentially built-up with the project development phases.

* * *

*

MANAGING

*

Participant’s

QC ACTIVITY

The intention of this paper is to facilitate managing of the QC activity which had previously been ill structured. responsibility

ii

Developing

QC

cube

Designer/consultant

Owner/client

Studies

Design

I

In lplementatl

1 Figure

IO. Development

of the

QC cube

Project

Management

The management functions are now traditionally well known and can be gathered together in five functions shown in Figure 11. The problem which needs to be emphasized in this conceptual framework is the lack of experience in applying these management functions on QC activity, which should be conducted by project managers engaged within the organizations of the three participants. The order of magnitude of the problem can be grasped if the following three components of the project quality-control management model shown in Figure 12 are assembled. These three components are

Planning

Organizing

Directing

0 management functions quality control cube l project phases l

From Figure 12, one illuminating numbers:

Communicating

can

arrive

number of quality control activities fifteen (Table 2), 0 management functions are five. l

at

the

following

to be managed

is

Controlling

Hence, the total number of managing functions is 15 x 5 = 75. Considering the four phases of the project development cycle, the grand total of the management functions

Figure I I, Management functions

I-

I

Planning

I

------

1

I

Studies

I

I

Organizing

Directing

Communicating

Controlling

Management

l_LTIrJ

System

functions Quality

control

Project

phases

cube

Figure 12. Project quality-control management model

Vol 7 No 2 May 1989

89

which should be conducted is 75 X 4 = 300. The quality control activity is said to be managed properly if these 300 management functions are precisely implemented by project managers.

CONCLUSION Quality

control

could not be comprehensively

Adel Yaseen obtained his vostgraduate diploma in prod&ion engineering in I957 and has worked as a vroduction eneineer and planning expert in bo;h industry and the Egyptian government. In 1970, he was appointed programming director for the implementation of an Egyptian iron and steel complex. He has worked as a project management consultant for the Egyptian government and as a consultant for the Arab League in formulating industrial strategy and project implementation mangement for the Arab countries.

90

managed

unless it is well defined. The paper has introduced an elaboration of quality control activity definition. Project managers in developing countries are invited to go through these 300 management responsibility areas and note how each is conducted. This may give an indication of the existing problem and how the proposed clarification is significant for developing countries.

Abdel-Fattah El-Marashly graduated in mechanical engineering in I958 and was subsequently appointed planning officer in industrial and electrical sectors for the Egyptian Government. In 1969, through his attachment to the Arab League, he became responsible for developing project implementation management in the Arab countries. He has also participated in expert groups established by UNIDO to management project produce manuals for developing countries. He is currently assistant general manager for research consultation at the Arab International Bank, Cairo, Egypt.

Project

and

Management