Blog Posts Process Analysis

Project Quality Audit Reviews Process Q110

Blog: Biz-Performance, David Brown

Q110 – Check Work Done against Plan

SIIPS Quality Audit Reviews Processes (Q).png


SIIPS Q110.pngCheck that all planned tasks have been completed.  Explain and document any discrepancies, and agree any remedial actions required.


The work required according to the project’s path plan and segment plan is checked against project tracking data to ensure that all planned tasks have been undertaken.
Any deviation from the planned work 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.


This process is optional.  It is only used if project tracking is being used such that the work done conducted can be measured and reviewed.


Prerequisites (Finish-Start):
  • Production of the Segment Plan
Prerequisites (Finish-Finish):
  • All preceding segment processes
Dependent procedures (Finish-Finish):
  • QA signoff (Q180)


  • Quality Plan
  • All deliverables from the preceding segment


  • QA signoff checklist – Processes and Tasks 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 – Processes and Tasks form
  • Skeleton deliverables: Corrective Action Request
  • Path templates for the segment
  • Process descriptions and examples for the segment


Review the work done

The processes and tasks will normally have been defined and planned during the project and segment launch processes.  The actual work performed should be checked against these plans to assess whether:
  • the tasks were carried out, and
  • the tasks were completed.
Evidence for the work carried out is normally taken from the project’s tracking system, but other techniques may be used to establish whether the work was conducted as planned.  Where a task was not conducted or completed, it should be investigated why this was.  The results may be recorded on a QA signoff checklist form.

Define and agree remedial actions

Any deviation from the planned work should be identified and reviewed (if appropriate) with the project team members involved, the project sponsor and those persons responsible for assuring 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.

Leave a Comment

Get the BPI Web Feed

Using the HTML code below, you can display this Business Process Incubator page content with the current filter and sorting inside your web site for FREE.

Copy/Paste this code in your website html code:

<iframe src="" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" width="100%" height="700">

Customizing your BPI Web Feed

You can click on the Get the BPI Web Feed link on any of our page to create the best possible feed for your site. Here are a few tips to customize your BPI Web Feed.

Customizing the Content Filter
On any page, you can add filter criteria using the MORE FILTERS interface:

Customizing the Content Filter

Customizing the Content Sorting
Clicking on the sorting options will also change the way your BPI Web Feed will be ordered on your site:

Get the BPI Web Feed

Some integration examples