Achieving effective communication is largely agreed to be the most difficult task in most, if not all, businesses. Even at its simplest level — face to face, one to one — the potential for confusion or misinterpretation is significant. That potential grows as group sizes increase, and it multiplies exponentially as time and distance are added. This is true of active participation (discussion/instruction) and passive interaction (advertising, signage and large-format viewing/listening). To reduce the risk, the end-to-end process of technological assistance must be as accurate and predictable as possible.
How might this be achieved?
Quality Assurance
The answer lies in Quality Assurance (QA). It’s important to differentiate Quality Control (QC) from QA. In QC, there is a valuable action at the end of the effort to make sure that what was promised was delivered. This is a good thing, but it’s not good enough to mitigate the risk that exists in the early stages of any technology implementation. QA systems break up that final examination of outcome into smaller, more well-distributed efforts that provide checks and opportunities for correction at each major step of the process. For instance: a functional requirement missed in the design phase might be propagated through to successful and demonstrable delivery but not to an outcome that meets the user’s true needs. QA starts at the creation of the functional narrative and scope, allowing for early detection of missed requirements and the enactment of corrective actions in the “paper phase” of the project. Each subsequent phase of delivery is checked for quality in turn, and any correction required can be implemented with minimal change and effort.
This raises an important question: How can the end user/customer/responsible party ensure that the outcome will meet their needs and that the selected partner or provider is equipped and committed to a QA system that can not only achieve the right outcome but also document and demonstrate that it has occurred?
It all begins in the selection process. Asking for proof of relevant certifications is a good start, but it doesn’t ensure that the certified personnel will execute within the criteria of the respective certifications. Similarly, a company promising that they have completed similar work is not actually a demonstration of successful outcomes in those projects.
Examined, Agreed Upon, Committed
To have reasonable confidence of success, the QA system in place must be examined, agreed upon and committed to action. This means being an active participant and reviewing each step of the QA evidence. It means the designer must be clear, concise and complete in defining the feature, function and performance specifications of the project. Most critical is that all those attributes be demonstrable, quantifiable and recorded throughout the progression of the project.
We sometimes hear things like this: “It’s a simple project. QA is an unnecessary cost and burden.” That could not be farther from the truth. A good QA process doesn’t add cost or effort; instead, it quantifies and clarifies all the steps and actions already required to reach a successful outcome. Let that sink in for a moment. QA puts the required steps in the correct order, with defined methods and demonstrable verification. All those actions would have to take place anyway. Doing them out of order — or not at all — puts the “luck” factor into play when it comes to achieving a successful outcome. Worse yet is when the missed steps must be performed under time and budget constraints or out of order, likely requiring re-work (or possibly even major redesign) to meet the outcomes promised.
Although the provider might bear the legal responsibilities, the end users and project owners are inevitably affected. Loss of time, cost overages, overrun of other trades and diminution of confidence can be staggering. This is true of large, complex designs and of the simplest ones, especially when a small mistake in a small system is propagated tens (or hundreds) of times, possibly in locations around the globe.
Evaluating, Understanding, Aligning
Evaluating, understanding and aligning on the delivering partner’s QA system is paramount to ensuring success. So, dare to take a more objective view of potential partners. Challenge some of the common paradigms, such as the following:
“Bigger is better.”
- Maybe…but not always. Many large integrators are built on loosely connected smaller entities acquired over time. Ask for proof that the QA system is a common standard across branches, areas and even countries.
“Certifications = Quality.”
- Simply not true. Certifications mean that someone learned and tested material; they are not a guarantee of its application, however. QA ensures the application of the required knowledge is happening.
“I have a contract, so, legally, they must make it right.”
- Cost of failure comes in more forms than just dollars. Delays, re-work, arbitration or litigation have significant costs associated with them. An end-to-end QA agreement and performance data makes this much less likely and provides clarity should things become litigious.
“They have offices in the locations I need things done. So, they are the best for the job.”
- Well-defined coalitions, operating under an agreed and enforced QA plan, can leverage deeply experienced, long-established business in the specific geography you need. That’s different from just having “an office” in a region for purposes of marketing.
The reality is that, in the audiovisual and unified communications integration space, and especially where the two blur together, only a small number of delivery partners have an established and practiced QA process. What can be done to integrate QA when the partner might not be one of those few? Provide them with your expectations of QA. Point to the available industry standards for skills training (the doing) and for QA (the making sure it was done properly). Discuss demonstrable performance requirements, milestone QA reporting and audit plans. And, most importantly, be prepared to have an active role in ensuring QA actions are occurring at the right time, with the right outcomes.
This is the path to get what you want, need and paid for in this complex age of integration.
William J. Lawrence Jr., CTS-D, CTS-I, CQD, CQT, CQA, is executive director of the Association for Quality in Audio Visual (AQAV). Learn more at www.aqav.org.
