“Quality review is a framework for thought.” This is how I would like to start this piece. It raises and suggests solution to shortcomings to arrive a well-justified conclusion about a given work, product, service, and/or process condition. It is a process that examines work, product, service, and/or process standards and specifications against their intended purpose. Typically what need to be reviewed are the work, product, service, and/or process deliverable.
By any large, the task in reviewing work, product, service, and/or process deliverable cannot be taken for granted. It must be systematic and specific to achieve the validity of the quality results, but the shortcomings to arrive a well-justified conclusion about work, product, service, and/or process condition could fail (satisfy not) the standards and specifications. The premise is that, the lack of understanding on a certain form about work, product, service, and/or process condition affecting or influencing the project team decision-making due to ignorance. The lack of understanding due to ignorance could explain why one behavior behaves disorderly.
Moreover, the question, how can we ensure the validity of the quality results, however, remain unanswered. Thus, the intention of combating these shortcomings is the key factors why this piece is made into existence.
Further, a good knowledge on quality review process could help a person ensure the validity of the quality results. By adopting quality review process for achieving the validity of quality results, one may assume that the validity of his/her quality results will lead him/her to improve his/her performance.
A further, quality review process is sequential (one at a time) in nature. The essentials of quality review process are described as follows:
Initially, the QA member must have a certain form to follow if he needs to assess a work, product, service, and/or process condition. This includes:
1. Identifying what type of reviews you will use. This includes keeping in mind the purpose of reviews when you are deciding on what to use.
2. Identifying who will responsible for the reviews.
3. Describing any quality review checklists that will be used.
Then, the QA member must verify (confirm) the justifiable of the work, product, service, and/or process condition based on his knowledge and/or understanding of this form to validate (execution) the work, product, service, and/or process condition and achieve the quality results. Otherwise, the QA member must evaluate (comparison) the work, product, service, and/or process condition with this form.
In the evaluation, if the evaluation is stronger, that is, their comparison has a greater number of significant points in common, the QA member is suggested to validate the work, product, service, and/or process condition and achieve the quality results. Otherwise, when their comparison has a greater number of significant points of difference, the QA member is suggested to log the work, product, service, and/or process condition as an issue for clarifications.
The diagrammatic representation of the quality review process below shows the general assessment flow between components.
The sample arithmetic condition below is presented to understand more how this quality review process operates:
A.) 23 + 18 = 41
B.) 23 + 18 = 341011
Here we see a single test case (23+18) with two quite different answers. They are the results of two different processes with two different forms. In the left-hand example, we are justified in believing that the test case A is correct because our understanding confirms that it follows the real pattern that the addition process must follow (adding vertical rows, carrying the extra digits). Thus, when we validate it, we get correct results - the answer is 41. In the right-hand example, we are not justified in believing that the test case B is correct because our understanding confirms that it led to the incorrect process, that is, the sum is put down in order from right to left - the result is 341011. As a result, we evaluate test case B with test case A (or other test case) and find that they are not similar in forms and processes. Thus, the test case B’s form and/or process is an issue for clarifications.
The idea of the method with the quality review process can benefit us to speed up, achieve, and bring gains the desirable outcome.
Join QAST Practitioner Group and/or give comment(s) at:
http://daniloalsonado.com/qastforum/index.php?topic=25.0
