Quality control and quality assurance both contribute to the construction of buildings in Idaho, ensuring that the final product meets customer expectations and regulatory requirements. Although these terms get frequently used incorrectly or interchangeably, they denote distinct activities.
Quality control versus quality assurance
The proactive approach of quality assurance aims to prevent defects, whereas quality control involves the process of inspecting and correcting defects in a product. In quality control, trained professionals such as inspectors or engineers identify and correct issues found on the job site.
On the other hand, quality assurance is a management approach that involves implementing planned, systematic activities throughout the various teams. The objective of quality assurance is to ensure that defects are prevented from occurring in the first place.
The quality control process
In commercial construction, quality control is standard practice, with a team of professionals regularly inspecting the job site to identify areas requiring corrective action. Building inspectors, testing labs and third-party inspectors are crucial to this process. Toward the end of a project, people commonly use a punch list to identify quality issues that need resolution before handing over the completed project to the building owners.
The quality assurance process
Quality assurance is crucial to eliminating the need for rework, which is a common issue in the commercial construction industry. Rework is often necessary because the team responsible did not have the necessary information to complete the job correctly the first time. This may include updates, plan changes or clarifications that occur during the building phase but which no one conveys to the relevant parties in a timely manner.
Appropriately implementing quality assurance and quality control can reduce costs, even though it requires time. These measures enhance safety and improve the final quality of a construction project.
