Talk:Quality assurance/Archives/2010

Rationale and source of info
This article was created from content which was included in Quality control. It is being moved here per the discussions which stressed the import of distinguishing between QC and QA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folajimi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 June 2006

Reference to Quality measurements of quality processes would be nice.
eg. Capability Maturity Model

It would also be nice if a quality assurance section, with specific regard to website quality assurance were added, as it is a growing field as more website really become web applications.

Vandalism
Who put "ya mamma smelly flaps?" Is there a way to report this?
 * You already did! But better even than reporting it, you are encouraged to fix it yourself...! (But I fixed it this time, the vandals did some more subtle damage too). Notinasnaid 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Northenpal provides the article with buzzwords "effectiveness", "business objectives", "eyes of upper-management", "CMM" and "CMMI", as well as a link to some pet institute. Rather than reverting a second time I would ask if there are other opinions on this edit? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This information should probably be added.
The article states a very important aspect of quality assurance, ensuring that product requirements are verified and validated. Another major component that should also be included is the focus on reduction of errors/defects earlier on in the lifecycle of product development. Error/defect reporting is captured through the use of measurements as well and is tracked to closure. Analysis of the processes is conducted to determine the insertion point of the error/defect. This allows for mitigation of the problem through process re-engineering or adherance to existing processes.Spencerh01 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This view is rather mistaken. Verification and Validation is a control of products not processes. Validation and Verification is thus a part of quality control and not quality assurance.

The error is frequently made by those who aren't QA auditors.

The confusion arises because quality assurance assures all the processes of a project. One of these quality control (along with requirements, design, manufacturing, training, documentation etc.) Note that ISO 9000 refers to "all those activities" not just verification and validation.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control are two completley different Activities. Quality Control is phase within a System/Product Development Life Cycle - it is basically the process of finding defects and ensuring that the requirements have been met. Quality Assurance governs the entire System/product Development Life Cycle - it ensures that processes and procedures are in place and are being used through the use of audits, etc.
 * This seems to me like something that belongs in the main article.--Attendant 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Subtle Differences
To use the literal definitions of the names, Quality Control would specify an organization within an organization which would prevent poor quality product or services from leaving the overall company, while Quality Assurance could mean any organization, internal or external, that validates a product or service but does not have specific "control" over preventing the product or service from being provided if it is poor quality. Their basic quality determination functions would be the same, but the QC organization would have the power to prevent bad things from happening, and a QA organization would only have the power to report the poor quality. It's the difference between a pro-active and a reactive organization.

198.151.41.206 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a wolrd of difference between Qualty Assurance and Quality Control. It is very often confused by the wide audience. The underlying rationale for QA is to feed in to the process on th go to ensure that the deliverables will meet the expected quality level - in that sense it is a process to be managed. Quality control is a post factum activity to check.validate if respective requirements have been met. In this terms is more punitive.

Regards, Dorota Szymanska, PMP


 * First, I am new to project management concepts. That said my study guide(s) state that quality assurance is more a codification of those standards that establish quality control rather than the actual execution of that control. My documents go on to state that it is a form of documentation (implied) that is fully embraced by top management. Quality Control is the actual physical activities of required in controlling and insuring quality. Quality Assurance, on the other hand, defines the formal activities and processes required to attain the required quality level described in the quality objectives. In other words this is documentation meant to specifically define how quality control is executed and it is the written management portion of the quality policy.
 * If my take on this is correct then the article is quite vague and misleading. BingoDingo (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the two (QC & QA) remain separated as they are or at least should be different activities.

Roderick A. Munro, Ph.D., ASQ Fellow, CQE, CQA, CMQ/OE; Fellow CQA, ICRA QMS 2000 Lead Auditor

Might I point out that some of the confusion is because control and assurance have diametrically opposed meanings in different contexts. It is interensteing that Dr Munro's guide suggests that assurnace refers to standards rather than executino of control. In many audit circles (other than 'Quality Audit' of course) controls refer to the mechanisms in place to prevent quality failures and assurance refers to post facto assurance that the activity or process were done correctly. It is not just in audit that the terms have these meanings, those meanings are in common connotations of the terms.

It is a weakness in the project/business management literature that it presents such counter-intuitive definitions of these terms. However, it is too late to change them so it is incumbent on those using, or referring to, those concepts to explain that they are different from common-sense understandings.

David Roberts

The trees from the forest
The article is not sucessful in integrating a series of disjointed ideas and concepts thus making it difficult to read. It does not flow.

This article could benefit from a complete rewrite.

Mark Gilligan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.197.238 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of QA per se
There's no suggestion in this article that anyone might ever say anything critical about QA as a practice or a philosophy of work, nor any question of the notion that a theory developed to aid manufacturers can necessarily be applied to all sorts of other organisations. In fact a good number of such criticisms have been voiced. I'd welcome any comment on this, failing which I might write a section entitled "criticisms of QA" or similar. Jasonpfinch (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to read such criticisms.—greenrd (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference between QA as a proprietary product with a specific focus in a specific application and QA as a general concept in common parlance. One has quite specific methodology with limitations becuase of that, the other is a convenient way of writing about ways to provide assurance of quality. David Roberts

208.98.244.89 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, QA is a process, a generic process that it can be adopted by different industries to suit their own purposes whilst QC is a specific technique almost unique to particular industry. Many processes and techniques are available to ensure QA is followed and incorporated into business procedures or policies; QC on the other hand is leaning against risk based inspection approach (API510). SO quality and risk are integrating together. Thanks, John Zhao