At the end of stage 2, an external consultant responsible for developing the 'e-learning course', was appointed to the project board as a senior supplier.
The stage 3 plan identifies the consultant as a reviewer of the 'e-learning course'
When preparing for a quality review of the 'e-learning course', the consultant found 15 possible errors.
The consultant then documented these possible errors in the quality register.
Is this an appropriate activity when preparing for a quality review, and why?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.B.
The appropriate answer is C. No, because possible errors that are found when preparing for a quality review should be documented on a question list.
The reason for this is that documenting possible errors in the quality register is not an appropriate activity when preparing for a quality review. The purpose of a quality review is to identify any defects or errors in a product or deliverable, so that they can be corrected before the product is released or delivered. However, during the preparation for a quality review, it is common for reviewers to identify possible errors or defects that need to be investigated further.
These possible errors or defects should be documented in a separate question list, rather than the quality register. The question list is a tool that is used during the quality review to ensure that all possible issues have been identified and addressed. The quality register, on the other hand, is a record of all quality-related activities and results, including the results of quality reviews. It is typically maintained by the project manager, rather than individual team members or reviewers.
In addition, the fact that the external consultant responsible for developing the e-learning course was appointed to the project board as a senior supplier raises some concerns about potential conflicts of interest. This could undermine the objectivity and impartiality of the quality review process. It is important to ensure that reviewers are independent and unbiased, and that their findings are based solely on the merits of the product or deliverable being reviewed.