Q100 – Check Deliverables against QA Checklist
This is a formal review to ensure that all required deliverables have been produced, reviewed and accepted following the methods and quality controls stated in the pre-defined Quality Plan. It is not a review of the quality of the work or deliverables.
A checklist of deliverables and their required acceptance / authorisation procedures will normally have been prepared during quality planning in the launch processes. This is a formal review to ensure that all required deliverables have been completed and accepted according to the pre-defined quality plan. This is not a review of the quality of each document – it is only a review that the correct approval methods and procedures have been used. Following the agreed approval procedures should be assuring the actual quality of the end-products.
Any deviation from the planned deliverables should be identified and reviewed with the project sponsor and those persons responsible for ensuring the project’s quality. They may either:
certify that the deviation or omission is acceptable, or
define corrective action that should be taken.
Any impact on timescales, costs or resourcing should be identified, but the detailed evaluation of the impact should be handled by the normal project management and control procedures. It may be appropriate to update the project’s issues control process.
Where a project or the client organisation is operating according to formal quality standards, these should be followed in performing this process.
PATH PLANNING GUIDANCE
This process is normal practice.
Dependent procedures (Finish-Finish):
QA signoff checklist – deliverables form
Revised Path Plan / Segment Plan for remedial work (if any)
Corrective Action Requests (as required)
Corrective Action Request Log (updated)
Examples: QA signoff checklist – deliverables form
Skeleton deliverables: Corrective Action Request
Path templates / Process Lists for the work segment
Process descriptions and examples for the work segment
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TASKS
Review the deliverables
A checklist of deliverables and their required acceptance / authorisation procedures will normally have been prepared during quality planning in the launch processes. The actual deliverables produced should be checked against this list to assess whether:
they have been produced
they address the subject, objectives or scope as described in the plan
there is evidence that they have been distributed and reviewed according to the plan
there is evidence that they have been accepted and signed off according to the plan.
The results may be recorded on a QA signoff checklist form.
Define and agree remedial actions
Any deviation from the planned deliverables should be identified and reviewed (if appropriate) with the project team members involved, the project sponsor and those persons responsible for ensuring the project’s quality. They may either:
certify that the deviation or omission is acceptable (this would usually be noted on the QA signoff checklist form), or
define corrective action that should be taken, normally by issuing a Corrective Action Request (CAR).
Any remedial action required should be discussed and agreed in principle with the project’s sponsor. This work should normally be viewed (and tracked) as a re-opening of the deficient tasks and processes within the preceding segment – not as a new area of work to be undertaken. It should be performed (in principle) by the same people and under the same budget as the original deficient tasks.
Where remedial work is to be undertaken, it should be considered whether:
the deficiency requires attention before continuing with the following segment, or
the deficiency could be corrected by work during the following segment.
In all cases, it is appropriate to set time limits for completing the required actions. Details of the required actions, responsibilities and dates are entered both on the Corrective Action Request (CAR) and summarised in the CAR Log.
Any impact on the project’s overall plans, the cost/benefit projections, resourcing needs, timing/scheduling, and contractual issues should be identified. It should be dealt with according to the project’s normal approach to project management and issues control rather than being treated as new work or as part of the QA process.
Reviewing the remedial work
This process does not normally deal with undertaking the remedial actions. The remedial work would be the subject of other processes and tasks.
The person responsible for monitoring QA reviews (normally as defined in the project’s Quality Plan) should monitor and review the outstanding Corrective Action Requests (CAR) based upon the CAR log. When the actions have been completed, the results must be re-submitted for review under this process.