In the dynamic landscape of utility projects, the concept of quality cannot be understated.
Quality is not just a box to check but is the bedrock upon which a successful utility project should be built. Quality itself is a business asset, and having high quality data builds a positive reputation for a business and fosters trust with clients. It is important to treat quality like one would with any other business asset, to invest in up front as it will affect the long-term success of a business.
Not planning for and deferring quality until the end of the project has several costs. These costs can manifest in the form of uncoordinated standards or repeated errors permeating each project phase, or in an inflated budget spent on rework.
The cost of deferring quality in a utility project comes down to how the stakeholders view quality – as an investment or a hassle.
Setting up development standards and practices at the start of a project is crucial when it comes to avoiding the cost of deferred quality because this reduces the risk of ambiguity and personal interpretation. Setting one universal model for every team that will potentially work on a project, be it engineering, production, or quality control, sets the precedent for the project’s commitment to consistency.
These standards can be collaboratively defined by a common workflow or standardized operating procedure. The theme is consistent and effective specifications, which includes quality checkpoints throughout the workflow.
Ensuring consistent data collection practices is essential to avoid discrepancies. These inconsistencies affect the final data and the value of the decisions that are made based on that data.
For example, without defining how a field is collected, a date value may be written several different ways (MM/DD/YYYY, DD/MM/YYYY, MM/DD/YY). Without distinguishing what qualifies as a work order number, one team may use the job number while another team uses the account number. Standardizing these fields from the beginning of a project reduces the rework that may need to be done later to fix these interpretations.
Defining these specifications to be consistent throughout every location and team is critical. A workflow will define the project phases and steps taken with each team, while a standard operating procedure (SOP) will give step by step instructions for each task. Ownership of tasks and processes should be defined in these roadmaps, rather than being passed along verbally like a game of telephone.
One of the main risk areas in a project is when work is passed between teams. Team A assumes the next team will handle something, while team B assumes team A already handled it. These issues can surface and be caught in quality control, but not if it is deferred to the end of the project.
Setting standards and defining ownership of individual tasks leaves no room for miscommunications when it comes to team expectations and work allocation.
By implementing quality checkpoints during project standardization, rapid feedback is enabled which allows for swift corrective action. When the quality control team identifies an incorrect attribute that requires attention, this feedback can be communicated promptly. With this efficient turnaround time, the team can address the issue before the error reoccurs.
Conversely, when quality assessment is deferred until the end of the project, the same error might permeate throughout the entire project. This can range from minor issues to substantial problems that significantly impact on the final project deadline.
Moreover, if an oversight is not corrected promptly, it can cascade into several more errors based on the initial mistake. These subsequent errors may accumulate, leading to compounded issues that are harder to address later on. Timely feedback is crucial. If feedback needs to be delivered to the production team, doing so as soon as possible is the ideal situation. By addressing quality concerns early, organizations can prevent the snowball effect of errors and ensure smoother project execution.
Allowing for corrections during the project lifecycle makes teams proactive when it comes to continuous improvement. Regular quality checks and feedback loops provide advice that can be analyzed and then implemented through the next phases of the project. Waiting for the end to make these corrections misses the opportunity for improvement and continued team learning.
Providing timely feedback and allowing for corrections at each project phase reduces the cost of reworking all the errors at the end of the project.
Whether it be a project at work or home, having to redo an already completed task is frustrating. Rework takes time and money to correct and being able to avoid it through implementing quality checkpoints may create additional costs in the beginning but will save in the long run.
A utility company working to update the accuracy of their gas GIS records by implementing a survey of their current infrastructure may run into issues at the end of the project when quality checkpoints were not applied from the start. Incomplete data due to missing values may build up for a number of reasons, be it temporarily inaccessible survey areas, equipment malfunctions, or user error.
Missing one attribute may seem minor but can build up and affect the reliability of the entire dataset which will negate the cost of the survey in the first place.
By implementing quality standards and checkpoints throughout the lifecycle of a project, these errors may be identified and corrected the first or second time they occur, rather than at the end. In this example, the survey crew has the opportunity to revisit the same area straightaway and rectify any missing values, avoiding the need for a second trip months later.
When considering the budget for a project, allocating funds to quality should be looked at with the perspective of Feigenbaum’s Cost of Quality Categories, specifically prevention and appraisal costs versus internal and external failure costs. Prevention costs cover any activities designed to prevent inferior quality and appraisal costs are activities designed to measure or inspect quality requirements. These costs could cover implementing quality checks, quality training for employees, hiring quality personnel, internal project audits and many more.
Quality checks can range from manually performed to automated checks. These costs are typically seen as an investment and necessary to avoid failure costs. Internal failure costs arise when data fails to meet internal quality standards upon project completion.
In contrast, external failure costs refer to errors discovered by customers after delivery. These costs can range from customer complaints to project liability and legal fees. Customer dissatisfaction may erode confidence due to delays, poor service, or safety concerns. Ultimately, these expenses represent the cost of reworking an entire project once it has been completed.
Ultimately, it is less expensive to fix an issue the first time than to fix it several times at the end of the project. Through standardization, timely feedback, and avoidance of rework, investing in quality from a project’s start and maintaining it throughout the entire lifecycle incurs lower costs than dealing with the escalating costs of rework later on.
It is necessary to review the critical importance of integrating quality standards and checkpoints from the commencement of utility projects. By doing so, it mitigates the risks associated with deferred quality, such as uncoordinated standards, pervasive errors, and inflated expenditures due to rework.
Standardization of procedures, timely feedback, and proactive correction are pivotal in fostering a culture of continuous improvement and maintaining budget control.
Every organization should advocate for viewing quality not as a mere compliance checkbox but as a foundational investment that safeguards the project’s integrity and success. Ultimately, adhering to these principles not only enhances the efficiency and reliability of the project outcomes but also upholds the reputation of the organization in delivering comprehensive and dependable services.
(630) 353-4000
info@entrustsol.com