Quality Objectives Statement – Free Word Download

Quality Objectives Statement – Free Word Download

Introduction to the Quality Objectives Statement

In the previous template, we discussed “Initial Quality Expectations,” which involved gathering the subjective desires and needs of your stakeholders. That was the qualitative phase of definition. Now, we must transition to the quantitative phase. The Quality Objectives Statement takes those broad, often vague expectations—such as “make it user-friendly” or “ensure it is robust” and translates them into hard, measurable targets.

This document serves as the formal “contract of quality” for the project. It removes the ambiguity that often leads to disputes during the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) phase. Without this document, a stakeholder can reject a deliverable simply because it “doesn’t feel right.” With this document, the criteria for rejection are strictly mathematical. If the project meets the objectives defined here, it is deemed successful, regardless of subjective feelings.

The Quality Objectives Statement is a subset of the overarching Quality Management Plan. While the Plan describes the processes (how you will test, who will approve), this Statement describes the destinations (what score we must achieve). It provides the metrics that will appear on your project dashboard.

By completing this template, you will define specific targets for product performance, defect density, process adherence, and customer satisfaction. You will establish the “Pass/Fail” criteria for the project. This document protects the delivery team by defining the finish line. It ensures that the team is not held to an impossible standard of perfection, but rather to an agreed standard of excellence.

Section 1: Philosophy and Strategic Alignment

1.1 From Expectation to Objective

The first step is to articulate the philosophy behind your targets. Why are we setting these specific goals? This section connects the quality targets back to the business case.

The Transformation Process:

You must explain how a subjective expectation becomes an objective.

  • Expectation: “The system should be fast.” (Subjective).
  • Objective: “The system shall render the homepage in under 1.5 seconds for 95% of users on a 4G connection.” (Objective).

Guidance for Completion:

Write a statement confirming that these objectives supersede any vague requirements found in earlier documents.

“This document represents the definitive quality targets for Project [Name]. In the event of a conflict between a vague requirement in the Project Charter and a specific metric in this document, this document takes precedence for the purpose of Acceptance Testing.”

1.2 Alignment with Organizational Standards

Your project does not exist in a vacuum. Your organization likely has enterprise-wide quality standards (e.g., ISO 9001, CMMI Level 3, or internal Coding Standards).

Drafting Text:

“These Quality Objectives have been derived from the Enterprise Quality Policy v4.0. They ensure that while the project delivers unique value, it maintains the minimum standards for security, maintainability, and brand compliance mandated by the Governance Board. Where project-specific needs require a deviation from enterprise standards (e.g., lower security for a temporary prototype), this is explicitly noted as a ‘Waiver’ in Section 6.”

Section 2: Product Quality Objectives

These objectives relate to the “Thing” you are building. Whether it is a software application, a bridge, or a marketing campaign, it must work.

2.1 Functional Adequacy

This measures whether the product does what it is supposed to do. It seems obvious, but it must be measured.

Metric: Requirement Traceability Score

  • Definition: The percentage of approved requirements that are verified as “Passed” in the final testing phase.
  • Target: 100% of “Must Have” requirements; 90% of “Should Have” requirements.
  • Logic: We can launch without some “Should Haves,” but we cannot launch if a “Must Have” is broken or missing.

Metric: Defect Density

  • Definition: The number of confirmed defects per unit of size (e.g., per 1,000 Lines of Code, or per Function Point).
  • Target: < 0.5 defects per KLOC (1,000 Lines of Code) post-release.
  • Logic: This predicts the stability of the product. A high defect density indicates sloppy engineering.

2.2 Reliability and Stability

This measures how long the product works before failing.

Metric: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)

  • Definition: The average operational time between system crashes or critical failures.
  • Target: > 720 hours (30 days) of continuous operation without a restart.
  • Logic: Critical for infrastructure projects. Frequent crashes destroy user trust.

Metric: System Availability (Uptime)

  • Definition: The percentage of time the system is accessible to users during agreed service hours.
  • Target: 99.9% (The “Three Nines”).
  • Calculation: (Total Time - Downtime) / Total Time.
  • Note: Be specific. Does “Downtime” include planned maintenance? Usually, yes, from a user’s perspective.

2.3 Performance Efficiency

This measures speed and resource usage.

Metric: Response Time (Latency)

  • Definition: The time taken from the user clicking a button to the system displaying the result.
  • Target: Average < 2 seconds; Maximum < 4 seconds.
  • Conditions: Under normal load (500 concurrent users).

Metric: Throughput

  • Definition: The number of transactions the system can handle per second (TPS).
  • Target: > 50 TPS.
  • Logic: Essential for high-volume systems like payment gateways.

2.4 Usability and Experience

This measures the human interaction. This is often the hardest to quantify, but you must try.

Metric: System Usability Scale (SUS)

  • Definition: A standardized 10-question survey given to test users.
  • Target: Score > 80 (Grade A).
  • Logic: If the code is perfect but the user scores it a 40, the project has failed.

Metric: Task Completion Rate

  • Definition: The percentage of users who can complete a core task (e.g., “Checkout”) without asking for help.
  • Target: > 95% on first attempt.

Section 3: Process Quality Objectives

These objectives relate to how the team works. You can build a good product using a bad process (heroics, overtime, skipping checks), but that is not sustainable. Process objectives ensure the project is managed professionally.

3.1 Adherence to Schedule

Is the project moving at the right quality of speed?

Metric: Schedule Performance Index (SPI)

  • Definition: Earned Value / Planned Value.
  • Target: Between 0.95 and 1.05.
  • Logic: An SPI of 1.2 might look good (ahead of schedule), but it often means corners are being cut on quality. We aim for a steady, predictable pace.

3.2 Code Quality and Standards (Software Specific)

Metric: Technical Debt Ratio

  • Definition: The estimated cost to fix structural quality issues divided by the cost to develop the codebase.
  • Target: < 5%.
  • Logic: If we rush, technical debt rises. We set a cap. If debt exceeds 5%, the team must stop feature development and refactor.

Metric: Code Coverage

  • Definition: The percentage of code executed during automated unit testing.
  • Target: > 80%.
  • Logic: Low coverage means we are relying on luck and manual testing, which is expensive and error-prone.

3.3 Documentation Quality

Metric: Documentation Completeness

  • Definition: The percentage of mandatory artifacts (Architecture Diagrams, User Manuals, Risk Logs) that are signed off.
  • Target: 100% prior to Stage Gate review.
  • Logic: A project is not “Done” until the paperwork is done.

Section 4: Defect Management Targets

4.1 The Defect Severity Hierarchy

You must define the tiers of failure. A typo is not the same as a data leak.

Definitions:

  • Severity 1 (Critical): System is down, or data is corrupted. No workaround.
  • Severity 2 (High): Major function is broken. Workaround is difficult.
  • Severity 3 (Medium): Minor function is broken. Workaround exists.
  • Severity 4 (Low): Cosmetic issue. No functional impact.

4.2 Exit Criteria (The Gate)

This is the most important part of the document. It defines when you are allowed to “Go Live.”

Drafting the Exit Criteria Table:

Severity LevelTarget at Go-LiveTolerance
Severity 10Zero tolerance. Launch is blocked.
Severity 20Exception requires SteerCo approval.
Severity 3< 10Must have documented workarounds.
Severity 4< 20Must be scheduled for first patch.

Guidance:

Be very strict with Sev 1 and Sev 2. Never plan to launch with known critical defects. It destroys the team’s morale and the user’s trust.

4.3 Defect Removal Efficiency (DRE)

This metric measures how good your testing process is.

Metric: DRE

  • Formula: (Defects found before release) / (Defects found before release + Defects found by customers after release) * 100.
  • Target: > 95%.
  • Logic: If you find 95 bugs, and the customer finds 5, your DRE is 95%. Ideally, the customer should find zero.

Section 5: The Cost of Quality (CoQ)

5.1 Balancing Prevention and Appraisal

Quality costs money. This section sets targets for how that money is spent.

Philosophy:

It is cheaper to prevent a bug than to find it. It is cheaper to find it than to fix it after release.

Objectives:

  • Prevention Investment: “We aim to spend 15% of the total project budget on prevention activities (Training, Design Reviews, Pair Programming).”
  • Appraisal Investment: “We aim to spend 20% of the total budget on appraisal activities (Testing, Audits, Inspections).”

5.2 Rework Cost Ratio

This measures the waste in the project.

Metric: Rework Effort

  • Definition: The percentage of total effort spent fixing things that were already “done” but failed testing.
  • Target: < 10% of total hours.
  • Logic: If the team spends 30% of their time fixing their own mistakes, the process is broken.

Section 6: Quality Control vs. Quality Assurance

6.1 Distinguishing the Targets

Confusion often exists between QC and QA.

  • QA (Assurance): Preventing defects (Process focus). “Are we doing the right things?”
  • QC (Control): Detecting defects (Product focus). “Did we build the thing right?”

QA Objective:

  • “Conduct independent process audits monthly. Target: 0 Major Non-Conformances.”

QC Objective:

  • “Execute 100% of the Regression Test Suite before every release. Target: 100% Pass Rate.”

Section 7: The Measurement Strategy

7.1 Data Collection Methods

How will we track these numbers? A metric is useless if it takes 3 weeks to calculate manually.

Automation Strategy:

“Wherever possible, Quality Objectives will be measured automatically via the CI/CD pipeline (Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment). SonarQube will measure code quality. Jira will measure defect density. LoadRunner will measure performance.”

Manual Inspection:

“For subjective metrics (like Usability), manual intervention is required. User surveys will be distributed at the end of every UAT cycle.”

7.2 Frequency of Reporting

When do we check the score?

Drafting Text:

“Quality Metrics will be reported in the Weekly Status Report. However, the full Quality Objectives review will occur at each Stage Gate. The project cannot pass a Stage Gate if the Quality Objectives for that stage are not met (Red status), unless a formal waiver is signed.”

Section 8: Roles and Responsibilities for Quality

8.1 Who Owns the Metric?

If everyone is responsible for quality, no one is. You must assign ownership for specific objectives.

The Assignment Matrix:

Objective CategoryAccountable RoleResponsible Role
Functional AdequacyProduct OwnerBusiness Analyst
Technical StabilityTechnical LeadDevOps Engineer
Process ComplianceProject ManagerProject Support Office
User SatisfactionUX LeadUAT Coordinator

Guidance:

The Project Manager is accountable for the process of tracking quality, but they are rarely the person who ensures the code is good. That is the Tech Lead’s job.

Section 9: Management of Deviations (Waivers)

9.1 The Waiver Process

Sometimes, you have to miss a target to hit a deadline. This is a business decision. You need a process for it.

The Protocol:

“If a Quality Objective cannot be met (e.g., Performance is 2.5 seconds instead of 2.0 seconds), the Project Manager must raise a ‘Quality Waiver Request.’ This request must quantify the risk to the business.”

Approval Authority:

  • Low Impact Waiver: Project Manager can approve.
  • Medium Impact Waiver: Project Sponsor must approve.
  • High Impact Waiver (e.g., Security): Steering Committee + Compliance Officer must approve.

Guidance:

“A waiver is temporary. It usually implies a debt that must be paid later. Every approved waiver must be added to the Backlog as a ‘Technical Debt’ item to be fixed in a warranty period or subsequent release.”

Section 10: Conclusion – Quality Objectives Statement – Free Word Download

The Quality Objectives Statement is the backbone of your project’s integrity. By moving away from vague promises and committing to hard numbers, you are demonstrating professional maturity.

This document serves three critical functions. First, it is a Design Guide. When developers and engineers see the specific performance targets (e.g., “500 concurrent users”), they build the architecture to match. Second, it is a Testing Guide. The QA team knows exactly what to test and what the “Pass” mark is. Third, it is a Negotiation Tool. When a stakeholder asks to cut the budget, you can show them this document and ask, “Which of these quality objectives would you like to lower?”

Completing this template requires courage. It is scary to commit to “99.9% uptime” or “Zero Critical Defects.” It is easier to promise “high reliability.” But vague promises lead to project failure. Specific objectives lead to alignment, focus, and ultimately, success.

As you populate the metrics, remember to be realistic. Do not set targets that you know are impossible just to impress the Sponsor. A target of “Zero Defects” is often impossible for complex software. A target of “95% DRE” is challenging but achievable. Set targets that stretch the team but do not break them.

Finally, keep this document alive. As the project moves from Design to Build to Test, you will start generating actual data. Compare the actuals against these objectives weekly. If you are trending off track, act early. Quality cannot be injected at the end of a project; it must be built in from the start, measured by the objectives you define here.

Meta Description:

A definitive Quality Objectives Statement template to define measurable project targets, including defect density, performance metrics, and acceptance criteria to ensure deliverable excellence.

Discover More great insights at www.pmresourcehub.com