Project teams often pay more attention to quality control measurements than to the outputs of quality assurance, but the latter drive lasting improvements. After performing quality assurance, a project manager should expect four distinct categories of results: organizational process assets updates, change requests, project management plan updates, and project document updates. Understanding what results to expect after performing quality assurance helps the team prepare for the administrative and planning work that follows the actual quality reviews.
Quality Assurance Results: Key Topics Summary
| Key Concept | Summary |
|---|---|
| QA Outputs | Quality assurance activities produce four distinct output categories: updates to organizational process assets, change requests, revisions to the project management plan, and updates to project documents. |
| Administrative Planning | Understanding these outputs allows the project team to prepare effectively for the administrative follow-through and planning work that occurs after quality reviews are completed. |
| Performance Influence | These four outputs are not merely administrative byproducts; they demonstrate how quality management activities shape future project performance and improve process reliability. |
| Improvement Focus | Teams that understand these outputs can shift their focus from verifying deliverable compliance toward strengthening the underlying methods and practices used to complete the work. |
| Process Evolution | Although this process was formerly named Perform Quality Assurance and later renamed Manage Quality, its core outputs have remained consistent across project management standards. |
| Audit Findings | For example, when an audit identifies a missing regulatory requirement in a checklist, the result is typically a change request or an update to process documentation rather than an immediate correction of the checklist itself. |
| Process Assets | Updates to organizational process assets may include revised quality standards, improved templates, refined checklists, and adjusted procedures that the organization maintains for future projects. |
| Governance Role | Quality assurance can reveal outdated or inadequate standards, and revising those standards confirms a governance responsibility that extends beyond the immediate project. |
What results should you expect after performing quality assurance?
The four primary quality assurance outputs are not just administrative byproducts; they represent the mechanism through which quality activities influence future project performance. A project team that understands these quality assurance outputs can transition from checking whether deliverables meet specifications to improving how work gets done. The outputs also reveal whether the organization’s policies and procedures are actually helping or hindering the project. This section situates those outputs within the broader project management landscape.
Expected results after performing quality assurance in the PMBOK framework
In the PMBOK framework, quality assurance belongs to the Executing process group and the Project Quality Management knowledge area. The process was historically called Perform Quality Assurance and later evolved into the Manage Quality process, but the core outputs remain consistent. The four outputs listed in the source material are organizational process assets updates, change requests, project management plan updates, and project document updates. These outputs signal that quality assurance is not a passive review activity; it actively produces inputs for other project processes.
Quality assurance focuses on the processes used to create deliverables, whereas quality control focuses on the deliverables themselves. This distinction matters when interpreting results. A quality control check might identify a defective component, but quality assurance asks why the component was produced incorrectly in the first place. The output of that investigation often becomes a change request or an update to process documentation. Project managers who treat quality assurance as a one-time audit miss the ongoing value of these outputs.
How quality assurance results differ from quality control outputs
Quality control produces verified deliverables, inspection results, and defect reports. Quality assurance produces something different: it produces improvements to the system that creates those deliverables. A defect report tells you something went wrong; a change request from quality assurance tells you what to adjust so the same problem does not recur. The outputs listed in the source material are therefore more systemic than the outputs of quality control.
This difference causes confusion. A project manager might expect quality assurance to produce a pass or fail result, similar to a test report. Instead, the process produces updates and requests that require further action. When a quality audit identifies that the review checklist omits a critical regulatory requirement, the immediate output is not a corrected checklist but a change request or a process documentation update. The team must then decide how to implement that change through integrated change control.
Key Insights on Quality Assurance Outputs
- Four primary QA outputs
- Quality assurance yields organizational process assets updates, change requests, project management plan updates, and project document updates, each of which feeds subsequent planning, execution, and monitoring processes.
- Active improvement mechanism
- These outputs position quality assurance as an active improvement mechanism that shapes how work is performed and reveals whether existing policies and procedures support or impede project performance.
- Distinct from quality control
- Quality control focuses on verifying deliverables, recording inspection results, and documenting defects, whereas quality assurance translates audit findings into change requests and process documentation updates that close identified gaps.
Organizational process assets updates as a quality assurance outcome
One of the most overlooked results of quality assurance is the set of organizational process assets updates. These updates may include revised quality standards, updated templates, checklists, and procedures that the organization maintains for future projects. Quality assurance activities frequently reveal that existing standards are outdated, ambiguous, or insufficient for current project demands. When that happens, the project team updates the organizational process assets so that future work benefits from the lesson.
Updated quality standards after quality assurance
Quality standards are living documents, not static rules. A quality audit may uncover that the organization’s standard for document review requires three sign-offs but the current project needs only two because of regulatory changes. Updating the quality standard prevents future projects from performing unnecessary work. The source material explicitly lists updated quality standards as part of organizational process assets updates, which confirms that quality assurance has a governance dimension beyond the immediate project.
In practice, this means a project manager should not view a quality standard update as a failure of the original standard. Rather, it is evidence that the organization is learning. A software development team might discover that its coding standard lacks guidance for accessibility features. After quality assurance flags this gap, the team updates the coding standard. The next project automatically inherits the improved standard, reducing the chance of the same gap recurring.
Why organizational process assets updates matter beyond the current project
The current project may not directly benefit from an updated organizational process asset because the update often comes too late to change ongoing work. That reality can cause teams to deprioritize the update. However, the real payoff appears in the next project or the next phase. A lesson learned only becomes a true organizational asset when it is embedded in a template, checklist, or procedure that people will actually use later.
Many project managers struggle with this long-term view. The pressure to finish the current project leaves little time for updating organizational documentation. But skipping the update means the same quality issue will likely reappear. A construction project might identify that the site inspection checklist lacks a field for weather conditions. Updating the checklist is a simple organizational process asset update, but if it is skipped, the next project manager will face the same incomplete inspection data.
Change requests generated by quality assurance activities
Quality assurance often produces quality assurance change requests aimed at increasing the effectiveness or efficiency of the performing organization’s policies, processes, and procedures. These are not requests to change the project deliverable directly. Instead, they target the way work is performed. The source material notes that these change requests are submitted to Perform Integrated Change Control and can involve corrective action, preventive action, or defect repair. This distinction is crucial for understanding the expected results of quality assurance.
Corrective action, preventive action, and defect repair in quality assurance results
Corrective action addresses a process that is already producing poor results. For example, if a quality audit reveals that the testing procedure skips a critical regression test, the change request would ask to modify the testing procedure. Preventive action addresses a potential future problem, such as adding an extra approval step before a high-risk deployment. Defect repair in this context refers to fixing a defect in the process itself, not in the deliverable. A process documentation error that causes reviewers to follow an outdated sequence would require defect repair.
These three types of change requests share a common purpose: they improve the system of work. A project manager may initially resist them because they add administrative overhead. But the alternative is letting the same process inefficiency continue across multiple phases. The source material explicitly says these change requests are created to increase effectiveness and efficiency, so they are aligned with broader organizational performance goals, not just the current deliverable.
Submitting quality assurance change requests to integrated change control
Quality assurance change requests do not bypass normal governance. They follow the same Perform Integrated Change Control process as any other change request. The project manager or change control board evaluates the impact on scope, schedule, cost, and risk before approving or rejecting the change. This can feel cumbersome for a simple process improvement, but it ensures that even internal process changes are assessed for unintended consequences.
For example, adding a new quality gate to the testing procedure might improve defect detection but also extend the schedule. The integrated change control process forces that trade-off to be visible. If the change request is approved, the project management plan must be updated to reflect the new testing duration. That is one reason why project management plan updates appear as a separate quality assurance output. The change request and the plan update are linked.
Key Takeaways on QA Change Requests
- Process-Focused Change Requests
- Quality assurance change requests address the performing organization's policies, processes, and procedures rather than the current deliverable, with the goal of improving both operational effectiveness and efficiency.
- Submission to Integrated Change Control
- These requests are submitted to the Perform Integrated Change Control process, where the project manager or change control board assesses their potential impact on scope, schedule, cost, and risk before deciding to approve or reject them.
- Corrective Action on Poor Processes
- Corrective action repairs a process that is already producing substandard results, for example by updating a testing procedure after a quality audit reveals it omits a critical regression test.
- Preventive Action on Future Risks
- Preventive action mitigates a potential future problem before it materializes, such as inserting an additional approval step prior to a high-risk deployment.
- Defect Repair for Documentation Errors
- Defect repair resolves specific errors, for instance correcting process documentation that would otherwise lead reviewers to follow an outdated sequence of steps.
Project management plan updates after quality assurance
Quality assurance frequently leads to project management plan updates because the changes identified during quality activities often affect how the project is managed. The source material lists three elements that may be updated: the quality management plan, the schedule management plan, and the cost management plan. These updates ensure that the project’s controlling documents remain consistent with the new quality expectations and the approved change requests.
Quality management plan revisions as a direct result of quality assurance
The quality management plan describes how the project will implement quality policies, standards, and responsibilities. When quality assurance identifies that a particular quality activity is ineffective, the quality management plan may need revision. For instance, if the original plan called for monthly quality audits but the team realizes that biweekly audits are necessary due to high defect rates, the quality management plan must be updated. This revision is not a sign of poor planning; it reflects the project’s evolving understanding of its quality risks.
Revising the quality management plan also affects other project documents. The plan may reference specific quality metrics, templates, or review procedures. If those change, the project team must ensure that the updated plan is communicated to all stakeholders. Failing to update the quality management plan after quality assurance creates confusion because team members may follow an outdated version while the actual practice has already shifted.
Schedule and cost management plan adjustments from quality assurance findings
Quality assurance changes often have schedule and cost implications. Adding a new review step consumes time. Removing an obsolete inspection saves time. Increasing the frequency of quality audits adds cost but may reduce rework later. When these changes are approved through integrated change control, the schedule management plan and cost management plan may need to be updated to reflect the new baselines or management approaches.
A common scenario involves a quality audit revealing that the current scheduling approach does not allocate enough buffer for quality-related rework. The project manager updates the schedule management plan to include a larger contingency reserve for testing iterations. Similarly, a quality assurance finding may show that the cost management plan underestimates the expense of compliance checks. Updating the cost management plan ensures that future cost performance measurements use a realistic baseline. These plan updates keep the project’s planning artifacts accurate and actionable.
Project document updates from quality assurance
Quality assurance generates project document updates that capture the findings from quality activities and their implications for the project team. The source material lists quality audit reports, training plans, and process documentation as documents that may be updated. These updates are more granular than project management plan updates because they focus on specific operational records rather than broad management approaches.
Quality audit reports and what they reveal after quality assurance
Quality audit reports are among the most tangible outputs of quality assurance. They document what was reviewed, what gaps were found, and what recommendations were made. Unlike quality control reports, which focus on product measurements, quality audit reports focus on process conformance and effectiveness. A quality audit report might state that the team follows the documented change control procedure but that the procedure itself is too slow for rapid delivery environments.
These reports provide an evidence base for future decisions. If a later dispute arises about why a particular process was changed, the quality audit report serves as a historical record. The project manager can point to the audit findings to justify the approved change request. Quality audit reports also feed into lessons learned, linking the current project’s quality assurance results to the organization’s broader knowledge base.
Training plans and process documentation updates to expect
Quality assurance may reveal that team members lack the skills required to follow the revised processes. When that happens, the training plan must be updated. For example, if an audit shows that developers are not consistently applying secure coding practices, the training plan might be revised to include a targeted security workshop. Updating the training plan is a direct project document update resulting from quality assurance.
Process documentation also changes frequently after quality assurance. Process documentation includes the step-by-step descriptions of how work is performed. A quality audit might find that the documented deployment process is missing a rollback step. The team updates the process documentation to include that step. This is not a high-level plan change; it is a specific operational correction. Over time, these small updates accumulate into a significantly more reliable process library.
Key Takeaways on Quality Document Updates
- QA updates are granular
- Quality assurance produces targeted revisions to operational records, including audit reports, training plans, and process documentation, resulting in updates that are more granular and targeted than project management plan changes.
- Audits assess process conformance
- Quality audit reports assess whether documented processes are consistently followed and produce effective outcomes, while quality control reports focus on verifying product attributes through measurement.
- Audit reports provide historical evidence
- When disagreements emerge regarding a process change, the quality audit report acts as an authoritative historical record that the project manager can reference to substantiate the approved change request and its rationale.
- Training plans address skill gaps
- When quality assurance activities identify skill gaps, such as inconsistent secure coding practices, the training plan is often updated to include targeted workshops that close those specific competency gaps.
What these quality assurance results mean in practice
Translating the formal outputs into daily project work requires a clear understanding of how the team should use them. The practical quality assurance results are not finished when the audit report is filed. They are finished only when the organizational process assets are updated, the change requests are approved or rejected, the management plans reflect new realities, and the project documents are revised. A project manager who treats these outputs as paperwork misses the entire point of the process.
Using quality assurance outputs to improve project execution
The real value of quality assurance outputs appears when they change behavior. A change request to add a quality gate only matters if the team actually follows the revised testing procedure. An updated training plan only matters if team members attend the training and apply the skills. A revised quality management plan only matters if project reviews use the new metrics. The outputs are means to an end, not the end itself.
Project managers can improve execution by linking each quality assurance output to a specific owner and a due date. The person responsible for updating process documentation should not be left to guess when the update is needed. The change request owner should follow through on the integrated change control decision. Without clear ownership, these outputs stall. A small process improvement that could have saved hours later becomes another forgotten audit finding.
Common pitfalls in handling quality assurance results
One frequent mistake is treating quality assurance as a compliance exercise rather than a learning opportunity. The team completes the audit, files the report, and then returns to the old way of working. Nothing changes because no one is assigned to implement the recommendations. Another pitfall is confusing change requests for process improvements with change requests for deliverable changes. A quality assurance change request targets the process, but project managers sometimes route it to the product owner as if it were a scope change, causing confusion.
Honestly, many teams also underestimate how often project management plan updates are needed after quality assurance. They assume that only the quality management plan changes. But a new quality gate can alter the schedule, and a revised review procedure can affect cost estimates. Ignoring these secondary plan updates creates inconsistencies during performance reviews. The project may appear to be on track while the underlying plans no longer reflect reality.
Connecting quality assurance results to continuous improvement
The outputs of quality assurance form the foundation for continuous improvement through quality assurance. When organizational process assets are updated and lessons are embedded in future templates, the organization becomes better over time. The current project may experience only marginal benefits, but the next project inherits a more mature quality system. This long-term perspective is essential for program and portfolio managers who look beyond a single deliverable.
Lessons learned and future project benefits from quality assurance results
Quality audit reports and process documentation updates feed directly into the lessons learned register. A quality assurance finding that reveals a recurring root cause can prevent the same problem in future projects. For example, if audits consistently show that requirement ambiguity causes rework, the organization might update its requirements gathering checklist. That update becomes an organizational process asset available to every future project.
The connection between quality assurance and lessons learned is often underdeveloped. Teams may document the lesson but fail to update the template or checklist that would make the lesson actionable. A lesson recorded in a register is easily forgotten. A lesson embedded in a revised quality standard is automatically applied. The source material’s inclusion of organizational process assets updates as a quality assurance output reinforces this practical distinction.
The BVOP perspective on defect analysis and root cause categories
Business Value-Oriented Project Management approaches quality assurance results with a particular emphasis on defect analysis using predefined root cause categories. Instead of treating each quality issue as unique, BVOPM encourages teams to classify defects into standard categories so that patterns become visible. This practice aligns with the quality assurance output of process documentation updates because a predefined category scheme makes it easier to update procedures based on recurring causes. BVOPM also uses quantified loss size units for product risk management, which helps prioritize which quality assurance findings deserve immediate action.
Key Takeaways on Quality Assurance Improvement
- Quality Results Drive Improvement
- Quality assurance results create a measurable foundation for continuous improvement by directly shaping updates to organizational process assets and refined templates for future engagements.
- Long Term Organizational Maturity
- While the current project may capture only limited near-term gains, subsequent initiatives inherit a progressively more mature quality system, which is exactly what program and portfolio managers evaluate.
- Lessons Learned Register Inputs
- Findings from quality audits and revisions to process documentation feed directly into the lessons learned register, enabling future projects to anticipate and avoid recurring issues.
- Recurring Causes Update Checklists
- When audits reveal that ambiguous requirements consistently drive rework, the organization can revise its requirements gathering checklist to proactively eliminate this defect pattern.
- Root Cause Categories Prioritize Action
- Business Value Oriented Project Management applies predefined root cause categories and quantified loss size units to systematically update procedures and prioritize the most costly quality findings.
