Whenever we ask firms to think about the characteristics or traits that set them apart from the competition, they generally mention high quality. I would hope that quality is just the minimum provided to clients, and not some really big goal to shoot for. Another characteristic cited is responsiveness, presumably a metric associated with quality.

In the realm of project management, the cost of quality (COQ) is a fairly basic but essential concept. It is also frequently misused and, in our industry, often shrugged off as only something manufacturing firms should be calculating. Contrary to popular belief, COQ is actually not the cost of providing a quality product or service— but rather the cost of failing to provide a quality product or service.  

Since we do projects for a living, we are indeed providing a real product and service that has certain client expectations attached to it— quality being one of those. We are likely providing a high quality product, so long as, (1) our definition of quality resembles that of the client we are serving and, (2) we didn’t burn ourselves out of our fee in the process.  

The costs of quality are neatly bundled into two categories. Let’s take a closer look at what they are and how they are incurred: 

Internal failure costs: These costs are racked up before our product or service is even delivered to the client. Failure seems like a harsh word to describe these costs, but there is really no way to sugarcoat the likes of rework, write-offs, over design, mistakes, miscommunication, and mismanagement. They eat up our profits, they are the antithesis of anything successful, and they are the result of poor team development and weak project leadership. 

External failure costs: Though a little more difficult to measure than their internal relative, these failures are often the most costly— meaning they inflict more damage than just monetary. Once our product or service has been delivered, the errors, omissions, scope creep, warranty work, client dissatisfaction, and team conflict come pouring in. These too are a result of poor team development and weak project leadership. Fortunately, there is a certain investment firms can make to ensure quality is established, measured, maintained, and delivered; namely:  

Prevention costs: These are activities undertaken to prevent poor quality within our product or service. The most effective and relevant example of this is team training and development at every level. Think back to the mention above, regarding the client’s perception of quality. Your team may generate flawless work— so in your mind, you’re producing quality. The client may see it differently however— value project leadership, use of new technologies, alternative delivery methods, solid communication, knowledge of their industry, team collaboration, and a whole lot more.  

Developing the team on the factors that truly set your firm above the competition is an investment worth making. Not long ago, many firms were rolling in profits, but too busy to spend on development; now they have the time but don’t have the money. The financial hit and loss of goodwill that arise from not training are a risk that I as a project manager and leader would never accept— especially in this economy. Why should you? 

If COQ was an actual line item on our balance sheet, we’d sure try to reduce it each quarter or set the marketing department on a mission to cover up bad projects with a mailer. Ironically, the costs to train, develop, educate, mentor, inspire, and change are negligible in comparison— and the effects are lasting and repeatable. We don’t invest in training because we are solely focused on the bottom line— though it is the easiest to measure and we do want to be profitable. Aren’t we investing in training and development because we want to be the best at what we do? 

Sidebar: What’s it worth to you? 

They are going back to school to get an MBA or a masters in real estate law. They are finally studying for and passing the ARE, PE, and LEED exams. Some are taking single courses to fine-tune their public speaking or project management skills. Who are they? They’re the ones laid-off as a result of the economy and they’re wisely using the down time to develop themselves. 

Clearly, they understand the importance of building their skill set. They may have understood this even when they were employed, but couldn’t dedicate the time it required— after all, it has been a busy couple of years. Or, maybe they truly didn’t believe they needed it— since no one in the firm championed development.  

I would guess that most architects, engineers, and environmental consultants enjoy learning and dislike when they don’t quite have the expertise they really need to do a great job.

I would also guess that somewhere in these recent years most of these folks expected the firm to lay out their training programs and of course pay for it. We know that some firms are diligent at it— and some are not.  

If you are in a firm that isn’t so committed, or in a firm that once was but now has whittled the education budget to zero, I want to offer an alternative viewpoint. What’s stopping you from paying for a course or two out of your own pocket? 

On the whole of it, it’s still your professional career that you alone are responsible for, it always has been. Don’t let this economy stunt your growth— because no one knows how long it will continue like this.  

Most of ZweigWhite’s daylong programs average out to $500 per person when conducted in-house. That’s pocket change relative to what your first degree cost you, but that kind of training contributes just the same to advancement, expertise, and knowledge that are priceless, and valued by clients. 

This may sound like a radical departure from what you expect from your firm— but if you want it bad enough and are motivated enough, you’re not going to wait for someone else to provide it. 

Those people laid-off this year are making an opportunity of this sour situation and investing in their future. You should be as well.