Kwality Control

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Brett M. Wilbur AIA, CDT Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 07:10 pm:    I've been asked to give a presentation to my management team on how to restructure our QA/QC department in the firm. I'm banging my head as we speak. Reminds me of this cartoon I once saw with a guy walking past a door that read "Kwality Control Department". I work in the "speck" department myself. The two tasks seem to run parallel. But I opened my big mouth to the Owner of my firm that I thought specs were part of a larger information management center which included resource management and manpower, references and standards, technology standards, risk management, training, QA/QC, etc. Everything that has to do with information distribution in the firm. He agreed and now wants me to put together a conceptual organizational diagram. Typically, as in this case, the only time I open my mouth is to change feet or to shoot one of them. As Architects tend to do, I started with a simple bubble diagram integrating all the aspects of quality management in the firm. It's still growing, and wasn't as simple as I thought. Unfortunately, I now have about 47 iterations. My assistant likes to ask, "oh, you working on your molecules". No, I say, "my Kingdom". Obviously, I have delusions of grandeur and thus have become maniacally confused. Needless to say, it's been cathartic. ;o> Anybody care to comment on their efforts to consolidate information and quality management within their firm? No need for company secrets, please, not what I'm looking for. I just thought it would be therapeutic to hear about other peoples "growth" stories. Thanks, Brett Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 07:37 pm:    You didn't indicate the size of your firm. Brett M. Wilbur AIA, CDT Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 50 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 09:30 am:    Sorry, I've slept now, so I feel better. We have four offices in Texas, approximately 175 people total, mainly K-12 educational design. I'm currently involved with developing and maintaining an office master spec for all offices. It's a never ending process. Organizing a corporate wide QC resource center is new to me. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:57 pm:    (Posted anonymously, to protect the innocent and guilty at my previous firm: A/E, a quarter century old, less than 100 people, two offices.) Once upon a time, I was asked to be on a committee charged with examining and revamping our firm’s QA/QC process. QA/QC was always used as one term around the office; there was no differentiation between Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Our first effort was to look up and provide definitions for QA and for QC, and open a discussion about what was what. I hope you are more successful than we were in getting people to recognize that Quality Assurance and Quality Control, while intimately related, are two different things. QA is the program; QC is how you check that the product meets the program. We met weekly for months, refining and revising, keeping what worked and discarding or changing what didn’t, until finally we had a product to roll out to senior management. Everyone said they loved it, praised us on a job well done, and said they would give it a detailed look-see and then issue it as policy. You can probably guess what happened…. Nothing. We’d do QC reviews (still called QA/QC) when we had staff with nothing to do when a project was going out, but if we were busy, quality checks were bypassed. A few more years rolled by with no action, then we had a few issues in CA, and some clients dumping us for other firms who had better reputations for quality, then the rumblings of lawsuits. So….senior management decided to convene a committee to examine and revamp our QA/QC process… …and the beat goes on, even to this day. According to friends who remain at the firm, yet another committee is being formed to look at quality issues. I’ve moved on to a company that, while far from perfect, believes more in spending time doing the QC required by their QA program, than in forming committees. QC checks are scheduled and done with every project, and with every deliverable. Common issues raised in QC are fed back into the QA program, and implemented in the succeeding QC reviews. The difference between the two firms is that the Quality Management Process (great term, by the way) here is an ongoing, evolving and self-correcting, while there the process was to think about it only when the threat of damage was too great. Good luck. I’d give you this one piece of advice: give it your best shot, don’t waste too much time on it, then implement it and stick to it. Let the daily doing of QC be the source for changing QA. And you are right, it does include a much larger picture than just making kwality planz and specks, it includes everything your firm does. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 172 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 01:12 pm:    Interesting subject. QA/QC, as I'm about to prove, has a variety of meanings and interpretations. QA is the process to insure quality at the end-product to reduce QC (i.e. inspection). For example, researching building codes and determining their application to a project is a QA process. Checking to see how well you complied with the code at the end (plan review) is a QC process. If you didn't have the QA processes, your QC processes would be overloaded, adding much time and money to the project through redesign. I developed for our office a Quality Assurance Program that has had some mild success. It is based on flexibility since every project is not created equal. Another reason for its flexibility is the concern that a formal and rigid quality assurance program may affect the standard of care (A lawyer could have a field day if he discovered you had a QA program that was to be used on all projects and it wasn't followed). Small projects don't need the same level of attention as large, complex projects do. Therefore, a QA program should be developed based on the varying levels of project complexity and scope. In the program I developed, complexity is defined by cost/s.f. (the higher the s.f. cost, the more complicated the building is - e.g. hospitals). Scope is defined by the project cost (the higher the cost, the bigger the project). The QA level that may be applied to a project is based on a matrix using both of these factors (High Complexity + High Scope = High QA Level; and Low Complexity + Low Scope = Low QA Level; all others are in between). The type, implementer, and coordinator of QA processes are defined by the QA level. The types of processes vary from code and zoning reviews, to cost estimates, to interdisciplinary coordination, among others. The implementer is the "who." This also varies from the project team, to a peer (external or internal), to an outside consultant. And, the coordinator is the person on the project team responsible for making sure the QA process is accomplished, which includes anyone from the job captain to the project manager. Also included are checklists that may be used in accomplishing the QA tasks. Some projects, such as feasibility studies, master plans, or concept designs, may not require any formal QA program, but may benefit from some of the processes. I hope this is of some help. David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 05:05 pm:    Mr. Geren has a good grasp of the quality spiral. I encourage readers to review the definitions and concepts of quality expressed in the Project Resource Manual. The Editorial Advisory Board and writers researched the subject at considerable depth. Other good sources of information on the theories of quality are the American Society for Quality and the W. Edwards Deming Institute, both of which have websites. slund (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 04:55 pm:    Brett Wilbur: Would you be looking for someone to help with the development of your spec masters? I'm interested in relocating and have my CDT, CCCA, and CCS, and would be interested in discussing my qualifications further with you. slund@sehinc.com Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 117 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 06:30 pm:    I joined my present firm 6 months ago and guess what committee got dumped on my lap! I've started by screaming and running for the door. I was forcibly restrained and have proposed a first step. Get some data to back up the complexity issue. Maximum 4 hour QC review of every active job. This will: 1. Generate demographics for each job cost, fee, size in sf. perceived complexity etc. 2. Encourage a dialog between the reviewer and the project manager. 3. Get things moving? any comments? and Wish me luck Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 45 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 07:45 pm:    I have found this this to be a perplexing subject to get a handle on. The following are a few ideas I now believe after having worked in this area in about four different firms of different types and sizes. For quality programs to be effective, they have to be accepted as the way you do business which means they have to be built into the way you do business in a natural way. They have to become part of your culture. The more effective you quality assurance methods are, the less dependent you will be on quality control reviews. Quality assurance procedures are more cost effective than quality control procedures. Doing it right the first time costs less than reviewing it and revising it. Institutionalized repetitive highly developed quality control reviews become self-defeating. People who know that all their work is going to be reviewed by others before it goes out lose pride in their work because they know someone else is responsible to catch the errors. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 475 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 08:50 pm:    Two words: Edward Demming! There is a ton of books and articles out there on Quality Control/Assurance. Some articles are even geared towards construction. Like Robert said, it is a perplexing subject. I took a course in college and even sat in on a few meetings of the American Society for Quality. Quality is a very ehtereal topic. Case in point. Somebody please define it. I'm a nuts and bolts guy. If I can't see it or touch it, then it is hard for me to understand it. Quality Assurance to me is more a mind set and could easily be compare to as a type of religion. I would sit in on the ASQ meetings and hear presenters speak but have no idea what they were talking about. I guess the concepts were just to abstract for me to fully grasp. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 47 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:35 pm:    Martin Van Buren, Eighth President of the United States, on "Quality": "It is easier to do a job right than to explain why you didn't." Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 02:46 am:    The secret to quality is simply perseverance. You need to continually evaluate the product and continually evaluate your understanding of what is quality. Then you need to make changes as necessary. If you do this then you should be in good shape. With regards to the definition of Quality Assurance I would like to offer a definition pulled from the ASQ web site (www.asq.org/sixsigma/terms/q.htm). Quality: A subjective term for which each person has his or her own definition. In technical usage, quality can have two meanings: 1. the characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. 2. a product or service free of deficiencies. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC): Two terms that have many interpretations because of the multiple definitions for the words "assurance" and "control." For example, "assurance" can mean the act of giving confidence, the state of being certain or the act of making certain; "control" can mean an evaluation to indicate needed corrective responses, the act of guiding or the state of a process in which the variability is attributable to a constant system of chance causes. (For a detailed discussion on the multiple definitions, see ANSI/ISO/ASQ A3534-2, Statistics--Vocabulary and Symbols--Statistical Quality Control.) One definition of quality assurance is: all the planned and systematic activities implemented within the quality system that can be demonstrated to provide confidence a product or service will fulfill requirements for quality. One definition for quality control is: the operational techniques and activities used to fulfill requirements for quality. Often, however, "quality assurance" and "quality control" are used interchangeably, referring to the actions performed to ensure the quality of a product, service or process. This is consistent with the definition used by many Structural Engineers whereby QA refers to the activities undertaken by the design team to provide the owner and other stakeholders with some assurance that the completed project will comply with the Contract Documents. Quality Control is what the Contractor does to insure that he complies with the Contract Documents. Since we do not have control over the construction it could be misleading to refer to our activities as “Quality Control”. In the context of a design firm the individuals engaged in production would implement QC procedures while when the firm monitors the project they would be engaged in QA activities. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 38 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:33 am:    "Quality is conformance to requirements" is the most concise and useful definition I've heard. In construction, that's called, informally, "meeting plans and specs" -- and we do have control over construction quality: It's the power to determine the requirements of those plans and specs, and to reject work that is "defective or non-conforming." It's the "means and methods" of achieving that result that design professionals can't (and shouldn't) control. Quality Assurance is the process of establishing requirements and the means for verifying that they are met. Quality Control is part of that process -- verifying that those requirements have been met, and identifying and correcting the things found not to conform. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:19 am:    I meant to add that the same Quality Process applies prior to construction, in the design office -- establish standards, then see that they're met. Requirements that design professionals must meet include appropriate design that meets program requirements, and construction documents that are accurate, coordinated, and adequate for intended purpose. "Problem Seeking," "Redi-Check" and other such publications can help define or formalize this process of establishing design and documentation requirements. If we were to treat the formulation of a Quality Assurance program as another design problem -- first establish the program requirements, and then design a system that meets them -- would it be all that daunting? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:36 am:    It is obvious that QA and QC have different definitions for different people as recognized by ASQ. Maybe this discussion is about the proper use of words but I believe that if we are not careful we can create expectations and thus liability. To say that we have control over construction quality can lead to the conclusion that if the final project has problems we are automatically liable. The reality is that the best that we can do is to create a system that encourages quality and provides us with feedback. If the Contractor is not committed to meeting the quality objectives there is surprisingly little we can do. Quality must be built in and it cannot be achieved by testing and inspection. Thus I believe that we should be careful how we define QC since it may create expectations that we are not in a position to meet. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 02:03 pm:    Mark, your points are well taken. Yes, "we should be careful" in defining QC, because of the implications that might be drawn. And yes, at least part (but not all) of this discussion is indeed about the proper use of words -- including quality, assurance, and control. Responsibility and liability are issues related to quality control, but not exactly the same. The Contractor is responsible for construction quality, period. The design professional is responsible for providing services in a way that meets the prevailing standard of care, period. But part of the design professional's usual role is serving as a secondary (but not comprehensive) verifier of construction quality, through occasional observation. If and when a design professional observes work that is defective or non-conforming, that is pointed out, and excluded from payment applications until it is corrected. That role might be compared to that of an auditor, who is not responsible for accounting error or fraud, unless there is some complicity in perpetrating it, or failing to report it. The auditor doesn't control a company's accounting practices -- its Controller (or Comptroller, or CFO) does. Auditors generally do "spot checks"; checking every bookkeeping entry is beyond the prevailing standard of care, for the same reason that architects aren't hired to "inspect" or verify every aspect of the work, continuously and exhaustively. Nevertheless, auditing is an integral part of the quality control process in accounting, and auditors exercise control to the extent that they find and report irregularities. Just the fact that they do that, on that limited basis, does not by itself, or necessarily, make them responsible for error or fraud, whether they find it or not. But that points up one of the basic questions in planning quality assurance programs: To what extent do you check? How comprehensive a check is practicable? Defining the standard of care, like most issues in the design professions, gets back to design's perennial question: "Where do you draw the line?" Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 174 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 03:50 pm:    Robert W.: Excellent example using the auditor. But, to answer your question "Where do you draw the line?" is a case in point for my position of using a flexible program. Projects, fees, schedules, and personnel (among others) vary considerably from one to the next, and having a very formal, rigid, program doesn't always work. It's like inserting a round peg in square holes of various sizes: for some it's too much (doesn't fit), for others it works (it fits, but not perfectly), and for the remainders its not enough (its too small). The discussion moved into construction quality control, but I think the gist of the original post was about ensuring quality in how we, as design professionals, conduct our services. By this I mean reducing errors and omissions, and satisfying the owner's program requirements. And this could be applied to the design professional's role in the field, as well (the quality of the field observations - what to look for, who to notify, etc. - as opposed to ensuring contractor quality). However, spot checking (or checking period) is not the solution (Definitely recommend reading Deming), which is Deming's 3rd point. As Bob Johnson stated, it needs to be integrated and accepted by everyone (Deming's points 2 and 14). The biggest thing, in my opinion, to improving quality is education (Deming's points 6 and 13). This is why the specifier is usually tagged the QA/QC person, as well as the in-house educator. Because of this, I think CSI should take a more active role in promoting quality as a philosophy in the design and construction industry. We learn why well-coordinated documents reduce problems, but how do we go about integrating that mind-set in our everyday tasks at work? Very few studies have researched quality in the construction industry, especially in the A/E field (maybe it's because we really don't want to know), and I think CSI can be the catalyst for changing that. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 46 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 06:31 pm:    Glad to see the discussion come back to quality in the design professional's office. I second the above recommendations on reading Deming and other quality experts - one shelf in my library is books on quality by Deming and others. I also second Ron's comment that education is a big part of the picture. Almost everyone wants to do a good job and do good work (if they don't you probably won't want them around for long). The question becomes do they know what good service is and how to accomplish it? Is everyone in the firm on the same page about what needs to be accomplished and what the standards are? Do they have the right environment to accomplish it? Do they have the right tools to accomplish it? In other words do they have a fighting chance? Education was certainly a major part of the quality program at RTKL during my time there. We used RTKL versions of the CDT, CCS, and CCCA programs as well as other education programs on drawings, contracts and proposals, project management, etc. The concepts about quality were built into all the courses. The program was for vice presidents on down to interns and administrative personnel. The concept was to have everyone have an understanding of the same principles that we were trying to follow and the tools that were available at RTKL to accomplish the principles. Starting with the basic education was essentially mandatory for all new staff (but without a formal rule). After a couple of years it became a self-recuiting program - staff who had attended put the pressure on all new staff to take the classes because it was essential for them to know how to operate within the firm. Inquiries about the start of the yearly cycle of education would begin several months in advance each year. People started with the basic CDT and then took additional classes in subsequent years dependent upon what their responsibilities were. Mulitple people achieved CCS and CCCA certification as they were also achieving professional registration. An interesting part of the process was the feedback that came back as part of the education program. The discussions that were part of the education program revealed where the staff needed more tools to get the job done. That provided us to guidance of where to go in the development of new programs and tools (QA procedures) to help the process. The education program then provided feedback on the effectiveness of new tools, etc., etc. It became an ever evolving process. Measurement of the success of such a program is not easy because there are so many variables in the process. We did not try to use any objective measurements. We did hear from team leaders and project managers about the improvment in the performance and capabilities of the members of their teams. I am with Ron in encouraging CSI to help us provide the tools to improve the quality of our service. There is still a lot of work to be done to improve how we work together in project teams, how we maintain the continuity of communication from the beginning of the project to the completion (how much do all the contractors on a project know about and understand the goals and objectives of the project as defined at the beginning of design?), how we coordinate drawings and specs, etc. Israel Rodriguez-Soto MS, P.E. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:11 am:    In my previous desertation on Quality Plans I spoke about the process that all Qality Control are the full responsability of the Contractors. That it was the responsability of the Owner/Gov or his representative the implemantation of the "Quality Assurance" Procedures. To explain a little of the procedures which are used in the implamantation of the Quality Assurance, I shall start by defining the purpose of the control of the onsite systems using the "Three Phase Control" System. a. Purpose: The three phases of control-PREPARATORY, INITIAL INSPECTION, and FOLLOW-UP are the core of the Construction Quality Management System. The primary purpose of the Three=PhaseControl System is to require the contractor to better plan and schedule his work to ensure that he is contractually prepared to start each new feature of work. B. Responsability of the Quality Assurance Representative:-- The QA representative must: 1. Assure that the contractoris planning and scheduling properly by ---being fully aware of the various phases of each feature of work. Maintaining effective communications with the contractor by participating in the Three-Phase meetings and conferences. 2. Beginning at the first QC/QA Mutual Understanding Conference, be firm and insist on the contractor's compliance with all the requirements. Assusre that the contractor is fully aware that he will not be allowed to begin any operation until after he has conducted a preparatory conferance. He must be adviced that no deviations from this rule will be allowed. C. THREE-PHASE CONTROL SYSTEM: 1. Three basic facts should be established at the three-phase conferance: a. That the feature of work is ready to commence. That all labor is ready, all material is on site or available, all submittals have been approved etc... b. That there is an agreement between contractor and owner/gov or its representatives on what is to be accomplished. That the definable feature of work is identify at the Mutaul Understanding Conference must be addressesed in sufficient detail to assure that there is no disagreement on workmanship required. c. That all questions concerning contract requirements have been answered to the satisfaction of both parties. 2.PREPARATORY PHASE:---- a. This phase applies to preconstruction activities---- those actions that are performed before any physical work beggins. Types of preparatory actions could include but not limited to:----Physical Chcks of on-site material and equipment for contract compliance etc...----approval of shop drawings, test reports, and mix designs. b. The QA representativemust conduct advance surveillance to make sure the contractor has satisfied all preparatory requirements before beginning construction. Without exceptions, he must enforce the contract requirements that the contractor completed a preparatory phase conference for each definable feature of work before any construction activity begins. Including all safety requirements and specifics site requirements which should be outline in the specs and special conditions. 3. INITIAL PHASE:----- This phase is required at the beginning of the operation and is intended to get actual work properly underway. It is workmanship orinted, and is the point in the process where workmanship standards are established. Some other topics to review during the initial phase are: 1. Defenition of full compliance 2. A check of all preliminary work 3. The standards of workmanship 4. Errors in the contract and plans 5. Required time extensions if any. 6. safety 4. FOLLOW-UP PHASE:----- This is the continous action throughout the entire time work is being performed and involves routine checks to ensure that previously-established guidelines to assure contract compliance are being followed. If preceded by thorough Preparatory and Initial Phases, this phase is more effective and productive. The Quality Assurance & Quality Control Programs within the Construction Arena is a process that requires additional personnel, not only fron the owners side but from the contractors side. It will augment the initial overhead personnel but it will lower the construction cost by controling errors and oversights. It is a system to implement dus giving the owner a better quality product. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 91 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:00 pm:    While Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's comments are interesting, they are largely applicable to the building contractor's activities and not necessarily directly applicable to the activities of the designer (or design contractor). I would suggest that the QA/QC programs implemented by the A/E are important in achieving construction quality. This is a terribly interesting and important thread. I must confess to having been puzzled for a long time about QA/QC as being an activity that is conducted "over there" and away from the design/production team. I do recognize the need for an independent set of eyes to check the Drawings and Specifications, but if this is the extent of a design firms QA/QC program, I think it is more than a little misguided. I am in firm agreement with those who see education as a critical component of any QA/QC program. I would interpret such an education program to include the intent of Quality Assurance and means and methods to achieve a quality product and (in the case of the designer producing construction documents) a quality set of "instruments of service." It should be understood that achieving quality in documents at the expense of quality of service can be counterproductive. At the same time, it is vital that each member of the team understand the expectations that the organization has of each team member in achieving the quality goals. If it is accepted that quality may routinely mean redrawing (or recopying) something, then more than a little of the work will be redone (in some cases over and over). I routinely work with people who will not make attempt to resolve ambiguity before producing the work. Avoiding a 15 minute meeting to resolve questions may result in several hours of work having to be done to fix the result of a bad assumption. Quality Control has to start with each person taking responsibility for their work and resisting the attitude that someone else will catch the problem and fix it down the line. The "checker" at the end of the line does not have enough budget to fix a mess caused by 1 or more people who will not ask questions and do not feel like it is their job to really understand what they are doing. Israel Rodriguez-Soto New member Username: israel Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:46 pm:    Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:11 am: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my previous dissertation on Quality Plans I spoke about the process that all Quality Control are the full responsibility of the Contractors. That it was the responsibility of the Owner/Gov or his representative the implementation of the "Quality Assurance" Procedures. To explain a little of the procedures which are used in the implementation of the Quality Assurance, I shall start by defining the purpose of the control of the onsite systems using the "Three Phase Control" System. a. Purpose: The three phases of control-PREPARATORY, INITIAL INSPECTION, and FOLLOW-UP are the core of the Construction Quality Management System. The primary purpose of the Three=Phase Control System is to require the contractor to better plan and schedule his work to ensure that he is contractually prepared to start each new feature of work. B. Responsibility of the Quality Assurance Representative:-- The QA representative must: 1. Assure that the contractors planning and scheduling properly by ---being fully aware of the various phases of each feature of work. Maintaining effective communications with the contractor by participating in the Three-Phase meetings and conferences. 2. Beginning at the first QC/QA Mutual Understanding Conference, be firm and insist on the contractor's compliance with all the requirements. Assure that the contractor is fully aware that he will not be allowed to begin any operation until after he has conducted a preparatory conference. He must be advised that no deviations from this rule will be allowed. C. THREE-PHASE CONTROL SYSTEM: 1. Three basic facts should be established at the three-phase conference: a. That the feature of work is ready to commence. That all labor is ready, all material is on site or available, all submittals have been approved etc... b. That there is an agreement between contractor and owner/gov or its representatives on what is to be accomplished. That the definable feature of work is identify at the Mutual Understanding Conference must be addressees in sufficient detail to assure that there is no disagreement on workmanship required. c. That all questions concerning contract requirements have been answered to the satisfaction of both parties. 2.PREPARATORY PHASE:---- a. This phase applies to reconstruction activities---- those actions that are performed before any physical work begins. Types of preparatory actions could include but not limited to:----Physical Checks of on-site material and equipment for contract compliance etc...----approval of shop drawings, test reports, and mix designs. b. The QA representative must conduct advance surveillance to make sure the contractor has satisfied all preparatory requirements before beginning construction. Without exceptions, he must enforce the contract requirements that the contractor completed a preparatory phase conference for each definable feature of work before any construction activity begins. Including all safety requirements and specifics site requirements, which should be, outline in the specs and special conditions. 3. INITIAL PHASE:----- This phase is required at the beginning of the operation and is intended to get actual work properly underway. It is workmanship oriented, and is the point in the process where workmanship standards are established. Some other topics to review during the initial phase are: 1. Definition of full compliance 2. A check of all preliminary work 3. The standards of workmanship 4. Errors in the contract and plans 5. Required time extensions if any. 6. safety 4. FOLLOW-UP PHASE:----- This is the continuous action throughout the entire time work is being performed and involves routine checks to ensure that previously-established guidelines to assure contract compliance are being followed. If preceded by thorough Preparatory and Initial Phases, this phase is more effective and productive. The Quality Assurance & Quality Control Programs within the Construction Arena is a process that requires additional personnel, not only from the owner’s side but also from the contractor’s side. It will augment the initial overhead personnel but it will lower the construction cost by controlling errors and oversights. It is a system to implement thus giving the owner a better quality product. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CDT, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 03:15 pm:    Just as a follow-up: I made my presentation to management on Monday. All went well, the proposed organizational chart for the quality management system was accepted and endorsed by all management in the firm. They have asked that I now develop the "How to" manual for the new QA/QC procedures by September 1. In the end it was fairly basic, pulling from many resources and my own experience. We will be developing a Quality Management Department which controls and monitors all information and resource aspects for the firm: Specifications, Info Distribution, Technology Management, File Management, Resource Management, Project Support, training, QC Review, Project Review, etc. It will be a complete independant department but will have access to and supporting interests in all other departments: design, architectural, engineering and CA. I am very pleased. Thank you all for your input, could not have done it without you!