Conclusion (about Quality Assurance Officer)

Jag snor en text rakt av från de ungdomar som intervjuade Sync om kvalitetsansvariges roll och funktion. Detta är deras sammanfattning.

One of the most important things to conclude from this report is that there are two ways of incorporating the Quality Assurance Officer in a project; either external or internal. The advantage with an internal Quality Assurance Officer is that this person has full insight in the project and therefore should be able to perform his/her job better. The downside with this solution is that it can be problematic when the Quality Assurance Officer is supposed tocontrol his own involvement,  for example as a manager for a project.

Ideal structure when it comes to securing the actual quality would be to have an external Quality Assurance Officer for all projects, like the building inspectors, who can control allparts and stages of the project and its organization with a critical approach and not being partial. The reason why this system might not work is because it would most likely be very time consuming and involve more people than necessary which mean the negative aspects ofa bureaucracy.

The result is that there is one effective and efficient way, and one slow and accurate way to involve quality assurance in each project.


Ganska rätt uppfattat tycker jag.

Tycker kanske att titeln Quality Assurance Officer låter mycket tuffare på utländska, jag menar kvalitetsansvarig låter ju helt lamt i jämförelse.

Möjligen kör jag nu vidare med bloggen enbart på engelska.