Quality management refers to the practice of making sure that every project action vital in the devising, preparation, and execution is successful and proficient with regard to its rationale and goal, as well as its performance. In a project, quality management does not denote a separate, self-regulating progression that arises at the conclusion of an action to determine the degree of the excellence of the output. Moreover, it does not entail using the most costly material or service in the market. Instead, quality management involves a continuous progression that begins and concludes with the project.
Quality management is more about prevention and avoidance as compared to evaluating and rectifying poor outcomes (Evans & Lindsay, 2012). It is a section of all project management practices from the start-up to the concluding stages. It concentrates on enhancing the satisfaction of the stakeholders through uninterrupted and incremental developments to practices, encompassing eradicating needless undertakings; it attains triumph through the advancement of the excellence of the materials and services offered to the recipients. This study propounds the hypothesis that by not linking projects to the set objectives and/or not having effective management to guide the operations, there is almost an assurance of not succeeding.
Quality entails the conformance to the requirements or fitness for use, which implies that the project has to satisfy the intended objectives and present value to the benefactor and recipients and that the materials and services must be employed as initially planned. The major concentration of quality management is satisfying or surpassing the anticipations of the stakeholders and sticking to the aims and specifications of the project. The eventual judge for quality is the recipient. The recipient signifies how near the project outputs and deliverables come to satisfying the needs and anticipations.
The manner in which a recipient delineates quality could be totally subjective, but there are numerous means of ensuring that value is objective through the definition of individual attributes and determination of a single or many metrics that could be gathered to reflect the features. For example, amid the characteristics of a quality project could be that it has a minimal amount of faults (Evans & Lindsay, 2012). This feature could be evaluated through the enumeration of faults and imperfections following the application of the project. Therefore, quality management does not signify an incident, but a course of action and a constantly high-quality project cannot be realized through a faulty process. Quality management entails a recurring sequence of determining value, modifying procedures, and evaluating excellence until the expected value is attained. This study will use secondary sources of data to obtain the research findings and conclude by approving the hypothesis.
In accordance with Al-Ani and Al-Adhmawi (2011), to ensure success, project managers have to boost certainty, enhance progression control, apply best practices, and concentrate on implementation. Lean Six Sigma ought to excellently satisfy performance anticipations through ensuring fulfillment of the requirements. Quality has been developing and changing from what one can generate to producing what will meet the beneficiaries’ needs.
Presently, Lean Six Sigma acts as a set of influential tools and methods for ensuring the quality of a project. Their popularity is constantly munching deep into the set strategies as the necessity for quality keeps on increasing. The execution of excellent tools is a critical issue for the majority of project managers currently. It entails uncertainties, which normally leave management in disappointment, and they are likely to desert the project just at the very start or midway following its execution. Some managers are able to get minimal success though they are unable to proceed further and carry on the project to obtain higher benefits.
Kim, Kumar, and Kumar (2012) outline some of the reasons behind the majority of project managers not succeeding in their execution of quality tasks. One such reason is the lack of effective management, where some of the managers seeking to execute quality projects express very little dedication. On the contrary, they partly or totally place the coordination of the project to other incompetent individuals. This results in the uncertain integrity of the project. The second reason entails the failure to deploy. In this regard, when the management dares to demonstrate interest, they do so only at the early deployment or not past preparation for worse instances, and when just a few benefits have been attained, no system is put in place to maintain the fruitfulness of the process.
The third reason involves taking shortcuts and deviating from the set objectives. On this note, it has been established that management may fail in executing a quality project by trying to copy one that had earlier been employed effectively by its pioneer. In this way, they may base their practices on a number of procedures or instruments while disregarding others and, in some instances, attempt to initiate a new plan with the application of old means or techniques (Kim, Kumar, & Kumar, 2012).
The fourth reason is the insufficient measurement, which would occur when the management normally evaluates the triumph of the project erroneously, for example, they could correctly assess or ensure the efficiency of the internal process but offer little consideration to the contentment of the beneficiaries as it necessitates more than can successfully be examined.
In accordance with Evans and Lindsay (2012), the majority of managers that execute quality projects, particularly with the use of Lean Six Sigma, do not realize the linked benefits. Implementers have a tendency to initiate very many development projects that are highly costly and resource-demanding, thus reallocating funds rather than hinging them on the most crucial handle. In a number of instances, implementers could lack the proficiencies necessary for the prioritization of the objectives of their project.
Many managers that fail to execute quality projects normally rush into it devoid of evidence establishing the objectives that made it triumph in the pioneer group since they have a craving for rapid accomplishment; they are not ready to devote the time and funding necessary to implement the plan. Some of the projects fail not because of value, cost, or initiating it late, but due to the managers failing to assess the requirements prior to engaging in the designing and implementation.
Under quality management, the most important step in the initiation of a project or creating modifications to an extant one is the identification of the demands of the clients since frustration of the customers is normally brought about by unanticipated failures resulting in unforeseen outlays. In addition, the failure of projects is, at times, attributed to the managers and implementers for their incapacity to foresee problems embedded in the course of their future application (Evans & Lindsay, 2012).
Low quality of a project could be improved in two approaches, which encompass making people operate smarter, that is, initiating quality (enhancement) plans as per the set objectives, or making individuals work harder, which entails the compelling management workers to increase their efforts and even utilize overtime.
Though there could be one main objective in a project, in its satisfaction, there could be other interim objectives. In the majority of cases, project implementers are charged with realizing a sequence of objectives as they seek to attain the major one. In most instances, the project implementers can just progress in a staircase style to realize the desired results. If they choose not to conform and instead progress in any other style, they might be unable to develop the proficiencies and insights in the course of working on a task, thus hindering their prolific progress; this may result in the failure of the project.
In an attempt to attain the set goals, they should be made into more practical and quantifiable statements that are termed as quality objectives. This way, the objectives act as the real framework anchored in both the way the workers in the organization operate and satisfying the needs of the beneficiaries. On this note, the quality objectives act as achievable goals meant to ensure the success of the project. Such quality objectives ought to be set in accordance with the quality guidelines with the purpose of ensuring that they are met in order of their priority (Evans & Lindsay, 2012).
The objectives could be modified after some time if need be, to guarantee continued upgrading. The evaluation of the objectives reflects the manner in which an organization is operating. Setting realizable objectives at all times helps to ensure the success of the project. The objectives could be revised as they are attained instead of setting extremely intricate goals and making them unchangeable.
Project managers (the management) could have the authority of the designing, implementing, and closing the assignment. To reduce the inconsistency of the project from the intended specification, it is crucial for the management to incorporate the priorities into the planning phase as the earliest possible to ensure success (Al-Ani & Al-Adhmawi, 2011). The best way of preventing the failure of the project in the course of its anticipated lifespan is having the management focus on practical techniques that will ensure high quality during its planning and implementation. In quality management, the project managers have to establish the expected degree of significance, which is characteristically outlined by the beneficiary, and determine the manner in which value will be upheld while carrying out the tasks.
For the success of a project, the managers have to make sure that the task is undertaken in a manner that satisfies the set values and objectives, the work practices are executed effectively and as specified, and that suitable corrective measures are taken to rectify any detected error. In addition, effective management plays a vital role in verifying and examining if the project deliverables satisfy the set quality standards. Therefore, not having the guidance of effective management is nearly a guarantee that the project will fail. The evidence discussed in this research paper clearly proves the hypothesis.
Al-Ani, R., & Al-Adhmawi, F. I. (2011). Implementation of quality management concepts in managing engineering project site. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 5(1), 89-105. Web.
Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (2012). Managing for quality and performance excellence. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Web.
Kim, D. Y., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30(4), 295-315. Web.