Quality manager Flashcards
(3 cards)
Jepsen, Mathiassen and Nielsen (1989) argue that using diaries is a good way
of maintaining quality in projects. Justify their argument.
Jepsen, Mathiassen, and Nielsen (1989) argue that diaries are effective tools for maintaining project quality. They critique traditional development methods for focusing too heavily on fixed procedures and too little on participants’ real-life experiences. Diaries, they suggest, promote “reflection-in-action”—ongoing learning and adaptation during the project rather than blind adherence to a plan.
In our project—a lifestyle intervention to reduce type 2 diabetes risk among ethnic minority students—this idea is especially relevant. First, diaries encourage continuous reflection. Instructors visiting three schools may face varied challenges, from student engagement to technical issues. Diaries would allow immediate documentation of such experiences, helping the team adjust and improve workshop delivery across sites.
Second, diaries bridge planning and evaluation. Jepsen et al. found that those who documented their plans were more likely to follow through and evaluate effectively. In our project, instructors could reflect on the realism and effectiveness of each session’s plan, providing insights into whether goals (e.g., improved knowledge of diet and exercise) were met and how activities were received.
Third, diaries can capture diverse perspectives within a team. With roles including a project manager, ethics specialist, and M&E specialist, a shared diary would allow each to document their observations—cultural appropriateness, student feedback alignment, or logistical issues—creating a fuller picture and stronger internal coordination.
Some may argue that diary-keeping adds to workload and may be inconsistently used. Jepsen et al. acknowledge this but argue that when used consistently, diaries enhance learning and quality. Our project already uses tools like Padlet and structured evaluations, but a diary would complement these by capturing internal reflections—what stood out, what surprised us, and what we would change.
Incorporating a shared diary would strengthen our ability to respond to unexpected issues, enhance cultural sensitivity, and reinforce our commitment to delivering a student-centered, high-quality intervention.
Turner (2009) refers to “quality” as a constraint. Elaborate on this concept and provide examples from your project and/or beyond.
Turner (2009) defines “quality” as one of the core constraints in project management, alongside time and cost—commonly known as the “iron triangle.” These constraints are interdependent: improving quality may increase costs or time, while reducing time or budget can compromise quality.
In our project—delivering school-based workshops to prevent type 2 diabetes among ethnic minority youth—we engaged directly with this concept of quality as a constraint. Our aim was to create an intervention that was evidence-based, culturally relevant, and engaging. However, achieving higher quality (e.g., developing new materials or extending workshop duration) would require more time and resources.
To manage this, we partnered with the Steno Diabetes Center and adapted existing materials. This strategic choice helped us maintain high quality while controlling costs and staying on schedule. It exemplifies how we balanced the triangle’s constraints.
We also established a Quality Manager role to embed quality throughout the project, guided by ISO principles such as customer focus, staff engagement, and relationship management. Tools like Padlet and pre/post questionnaires allowed for continuous student feedback, ensuring both content quality and participant relevance.
Still, quality set limits. Because the workshops were short, we acknowledged we couldn’t assess long-term behavior change. In this way, our desire to maintain quality within realistic time and budget boundaries shaped the entire project scope.
Turner’s framing proved helpful—not just in highlighting limitations, but in encouraging intentional choices. Working within constraints pushed us to focus on what mattered most: delivering real value to students in a practical, efficient way. Quality wasn’t just an end goal—it became something we had to manage actively throughout the process.
Köster (2010) refers to a “Magic Triangle” in PM. Review what she is referring to and provide examples.
Köster (2010) introduces the “Magic Triangle” in project management, which refers to the relationship between three key constraints: time, cost, and scope/quality. These three elements are tightly connected—if you change one, the others are affected. For example, shortening a project’s timeline may require more money or lead to a smaller scope or lower quality. The aim of project management is to balance all three to deliver a project on time, within budget, and with the expected outcome.
In our project—a preventive health intervention for ethnic minority students in Aarhus—we clearly saw this triangle in action.
Starting with time, we had a strict two-year schedule that included planning, running workshops, and evaluating results. Due to limited time, we couldn’t do any long-term follow-up to measure lasting impact, which was a drawback.
When it came to cost, our budget was fixed at around 662,500 DKK. To stay within budget, we used local professionals to reduce travel costs and reused existing materials from the Steno Diabetes Center. No staff worked full-time, and we carefully prioritized how salaries were distributed.
Regarding scope and quality, we planned two workshops at each of the three high schools—one on nutrition and one on physical activity. Although the workshops were short, we ensured quality by involving experts and gathering student feedback using Padlet, allowing us to make small improvements along the way. However, limited time and money did impact how in-depth the intervention could be.
In reflection, while the Magic Triangle helped us manage the project’s structure, it doesn’t capture everything. Our project relied heavily on ethical considerations and stakeholder engagement, especially because we worked with a specific and potentially vulnerable target group. So even though the triangle is useful, in real-world projects like ours, we might need a broader model—maybe a “Magic Star”—that also includes values like ethics, culture, and relationships.
