25 June, 2007

 

To Editor of PM World Today:

        I found the article by Ajith Kumar (The Quicksand of Quality Procedures) quite interesting in its thrust and focus. He is quite right about what the text of ISO really says vis-a-vis what's bruited about.

There are a couple of things he didn't mention - perhaps because of space - that I consider significant in the quality question(s) FOR PM. Foremost among these is the question of the proper role, extent and content for PM?

Then there's the question (left unanswered in the article) of the characteristics of a "good" "Quality Program" for a project.

Third, and fundamental to any discussion I believe, are statements of/about the elements of a "quality program" such as Quality management, quality control, specifications, inspection, checking, error tagging and correction, decisions on the point(s) and extent of inspection, and a small/short etc. I don't mean a Quality Management or Procedures handbook. Just a description of the diorama in which Quality Procedures are generated and performed.

I think it would be interesting also to hear his comments on the role of the "ISO Assessors" which I believe are required for the receipt of the ISO rating. Their ingrained subjective judgments on defining the role and constitution of  the "Quality Procedures" and often offered, and accepted, services in "preparing the procedures so they WILL pas the assessment; a bit like the PMP course offerings (usually with "assured pass" or money back) of consultants in the PM field.

I find the whole subject most intriguing and particularly the extent and content of both involvement and authority for the PM team. My hope is that Mr. Kumar will expand on his first viewpoint paper to provide a bit more "directly applicable meat", his views on some the points above and perhaps at that point, a bit more guidance on how to get away from the current, and widespread, situation -- a bit less railing against that situation.

Eric Jenett
Houston, Texas, USA