In 2016, NBN’s design validation process faced delays due to errors and conflicting opinions, with resubmissions causing significant time loss
Salesforce, 2018
McKinsey & Co.
David Grossman, 2016
PMI, 2018
You’ve likely faced challenges where varying definitions of quality or criticality affect performance.
This story affects anyone dealing with complex processes, multiple stakeholders, or different interpretations of standards.
Inconsistent interpretations in any process—whether design or otherwise—lead to inefficiencies, something everyone here can relate to.
NBN was dealing with three design partners and a geographically diverse workforce, leading to significant discrepancies in what constituted a “critical” error.
What one design manager viewed as critical, another might see as minor, creating resubmissions and inefficiencies. This impacted project timelines and resource allocation.
Select appraisers and error samples to evaluate based on predefined criteria.
Have appraisers classify the same errors independently to assess consistency.
Use statistical analysis to identify disagreements, then standardize definitions to reduce variation
A unified understanding of criticality reduced resubmissions.
Clearer expectations led to higher-quality design submissions.
Reduced validation time accelerated overall project delivery.
Case Study: After implementing the MSA and aligning definitions, NBN saw a significant reduction in design resubmissions. Validation times improved, and partners like KORDIA and Telstra adapted to the new standards with fewer issues.
At Consuledge, we specialise in empowering organisations with expert Training, Consulting, and Project Implementation.
