UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 91
The Role of Quality Assurance in Geological Investigations:
A Case Study
Varoujan K. Sissakian
*
Department of Natural Resources Engineering and Management, University of Kurdistan Hewler, Erbil, Iraq
E-mail: f.khajeek@ukh.edu.krd
1. Introduction
Quality Assurance (QA) is a way of preventing mistakes and defects in manufactured products and avoiding problems
when delivering products or services to customers; which ISO 9000 defines as "part of quality management focused on
providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled". This defect prevention in QA differs subtly from defect
detection and rejection in Quality Control (QC) and has been referred to as a shift left since it focuses on quality earlier
in the process (Dr.Dobb’s, 2001). QA includes management of the quality of raw materials, assemblies, products and
components, services related to production, and management, production and inspection processes (Stebbing, 1993).
QA programs were previously implemented in strategic and/or vital projects, such as nuclear industry, aerospace, and
aviation. However, since the last decade of the last century, QA programs have been implemented more widely in
different industries where ISO 9000 was founded and later on was extended for use more widely.
Recently, QA programs areimplemented almost in all sectors of domestic life, such as industrial, economical,
educational, transportation, agricultural, commercial, health, mineral exploration, geological investigation, etc.
Therefore, the need of QA program implementation becomes almost compulsory to have good products and
challenging ability by means of following ISO standards.
1.1. Aim
The aim of this work is to present the results of the implementation of a QA program by the current author with the
assistance of one geologist. The QA program was implemented on a strategic project carried out by Iraq Geological
Access this article online
Received on: January 2, 2021
Accepted on: April 24, 2021
Published on: June 30, 2021
DOI: 10.25079/ukhjse.v5n1y2021.pp91-100
E-ISSN: 2520-7792
Copyright © 2021 Varoujan. This is an open access article with Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Research Article
Abstract
Implementation of a Quality Assurance (QA) program in geological investigation is very significant and essential,
especially when the investigation is carried out for selection and evaluation of strategic and vital project sites. The
current work is a case study for selection and evaluation of a strategic site in Iraq where a QA program was
implemented for the first time in the Iraq Geological Survey (as a Contractor) as a mandatory condition implied by
the Client for all work carried out and included in the geological investigation. The geological investigation included
six main activities: 1) geology, 2) hydrogeology, 3) geophysics, 4) engineering geology, 5) drilling and 6) laboratory
work. The main roles of QA staff were to: 1) check the qualifications of all staff members involved in the six
activities, 2) verify work procedures by means of which the staff members of each activity were performing their
tasks, 3) follow-up all carried out works in the field, laboratory and office, 4) verify all types of work outputs by the
staff members of the six activities, and 5) recognize any nonconformance in any type of carried out work before
been recognized by the QA and/ or Quality Control (QC) staff of the Client. During the performance of the contract
that lasted for 30 months, three nonconformance cases by the Contractor were recognized by the QA staff members
and relevant corrective actions were performed. The three cases were not detected or recognized by the QA and
QC staff members of the Client.
Keywords: Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Work Procedure, Nonconformance, QA.
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 92
Survey (GEOSURV); as the Contractor during 1988 – 1991 in the central part of Iraq on behalf of the Client. In addition,
the importance of the QA implementation on geological investigations; as a case study, is presented.
1.2. Location
The location of the strategic project is in the central part of Iraq within Salahideen Governorate, north of Baghdad.
Four main sites were studied in order to evaluate and rank them, and to choose the best recommended site.
1.3. Previous Work
Implementation of QA programs in different scopes is very common; one of them is geological investigations. Few
examples are presented: Sissakian (1991) reported about the implementation of a Quality Assurance program in a
strategic project carried out by GEOURV. Geboy and Engle (2011) mentioned that the principal investigator of a
scientific study ultimately is responsible for the quality and interpretation of the project's findings, and thus must also
play a role in the understanding, implementation, and presentation of QA/QC information about the data. Plouffe et
al. (2013) mentioned that quality assurance and quality control measures must be implemented to ensure that 1) in the
field, samples are not contaminated from external sources or from other samples; 2) during sample processing and
indicator mineral picking, loss of indicator mineral grains are minimized, cross-contamination before and among sample
batches does not occur, and minerals are correctly identified; and 3) all reported indicator mineral data include adequate
meta-data for future reference and comparison. Setyadil and Anggayana (2013) mentioned that part of the System
management and Quality Assurance are the data validation, consolidation and reporting. Database developer should
work closely with the field geologist/ explore to identify the potential data error for validation. On the other hand, the
field geologist should have an awareness of the impact of the data error and how it should be prevented. The first time
the field crews may be inconvenienced with several validation systems.
2. Materials and Methods
The main data used in this work is based on the data acquired from the implementation of a QA program in a strategic
project that is documented by Sissakian (1991). However, MQA (1987) was used during the implementation of the QA
program by the author. Many forms were used during the implementation of the program by the current author and the
assistant. The original forms were acquired from MQA (1987); however, all those used forms were moderated by the
current author to meet with the requirements of performing a QA program in the strategic project.
2.1. Forms
To perform the QA program in the strategic project, eleven different types of forms were used. The numbers of each
11 types are presented in Table 1. The forms used are briefly mentioned hereinafter.
Table 1. Types of different forms used in the strategic project.
Activity Name
Experience Form
Training
plan
Calibration Form
Work Progress
Forms
Work Completion
Form
Verification Form
Committee Meeting
Form
Reviewing
Committee Form
Nonconformance
Form
Passed
Failed
Filed Work
Office Work
Laboratory
Work
Project Management
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Geology
21
6
2
-
350
138
-
6
10
8
5
-
Geophysics
24
11
1+1*
6
230
106
-
10
8
4
4
-
Hydrogeology
20
10
1
1
281
72
-
26
10
5
4
1
Eng. Geology
9
4
1
-
258
29
10
12
7
4
3
-
Drilling
26
4
-
-
342
-
-
17
14
4
-
1
Laboratories
33
10
-
8
100
4
363
25
18
5
3
1
Q. A. Unit
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
Total
137
46
6
15
1561
349
373
96
67
31
20
3
*
One of the trainees did not complete the training. The number of the total staff members is 141 (139 besides the Project Manager and the deputy).
2.1.1. Experience form
For all staff members of the strategic project, an experience form was prepared; even for the Project Manager and the
deputy, see Table 1. The scientific degree, job title and years of experience are mentioned in the form. In total, 141
forms were filled in.
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 93
2.1.2. Training Form
Staff members who lacked experience and were not qualified to join the work in the strategic project, were directed to
take training programs that were prepared by the the one responsible for the activity under supervision of the QA Unit.
In total, 53 forms were filled; however, among them 6 of the staff failed the training and were not allowed to join the
project, see Table 1.
2.1.3. Calibration Form
All equipment used in the project was subjected to calibration when needed. The details of calibration were checked by
using the equipment manual; those that needed continuous calibration, the duration was added in the form. In total, 15
forms were filled in. Special calibration stickers were used for each equipment to indicate the date and duration of the
calibration.
2.1.4. Work Progress Forms
Three types of Work Progress forms were used by QA Unit personnel, see Table 1. The follow-up of the performed
work at each of the six activities in the field, laboratories and office work by the QA Unit personnel was done using the
three forms. In total, 1558, 349 and 378 forms were filled in for field, office and laboratory work, see Table 1. Figure 1
is an example of the Field Work Visit Form, those of Office and Laboratory forms are slightly different.
2.1.5. Work Completion Form
This form was filled in by the QA Manger (the current author) for each completed work item mentioned in the strategic
project depending on the bill of quantities mentioned in the contract. Each form was signed by the Activity Responsible,
QA Manger and the Project Manager, and a copy was submitted to the Client. In total 96 forms were filled in, see Table
1.
2.1.6. Verification Form
This form was filled in by the QA Manager during checking the verification of any work (field, office and laboratory).
The type of verification and the verifier person; usually the QC of the activity are mentioned in the form, besides
mentioning the title and serial number of the work procedure. In total, 67 forms were filled in, see Table 1.
2.1.7. Committee Meeting Form
A special Reviewing Committee was established in the strategic project. The Activity Responsible, QA Manager and the
Project Manager with the deputy were the committee members. However, occasionally, some specialists were invited
from Headquarters of GEOSURV to join the committee. The date, time, duration, purpose, and members in attendance
of the meeting were mentioned in the form Figure 2. The form was filled in by the QA Manager according to the request
of the Project Manager or the deputy and/or any the one responsible for the activity. Occasionally, meetings were
conducted upon the request of the Client’s responsible. In total 31 forms were filled in, see Table 1.
2.1.8. Reviewing Committee Form
All conducted reports were reviewed by the committee; accordingly, the authors of the reviewed report should amend
the report by considering the forwarded comments by the committee members. However, when the authors were not
in accordance with a comment or more, then the committee members have to decide which opinion is the right. A total
of 20 forms were filled in, see Table 1.
2.1. 9. Nonconformance Form
A nonconformance case is when any field, office or laboratory work is performed with deviation from the involved
work procedure, also called “Defect” (Hoyle, 2009; Mitra, 2016). One of the main aims of following-up the work
progress in the field, office and laboratory by the QA Unit’s personnel using the work progress forms and depending
on the work procedures, is to discover any Nonconformance, accordingly a Nonconformance Form was used Figure 3.
The recognition of a nonconformance case by the QA Unit’s personnel before being recognized by the Client’s
responsible was one of the main aims of implementing the QA Program in the strategic project. The type of
nonconformance, date, work responsible and the one responsible for the activity are mentioned in the form Figure 3.
Also, the required corrective actions, which are necessary to overcome the nonconformance case and performing the
work according to the involved work procedure. Moreover, it is also shown if the Nonconformance was recognized by
the Client’s responsible or otherwise. In total, 3 forms were filled in, see Table 1.
2.2. Work Procedure
A work procedure was prepared for each performed item in the strategic project. The one responsible for the activity
with the collaboration of the activity experienced staff, prepared work procedures which had to be followed by the
activity staff members. Moreover, the QA Unit’s personnel used the work procedures to follow-up the work progress.
Each procedure included: 1) The required specialization and scientific degree of staff who can perform the concerned
work, 2) Step by step description how to perform the concerned work, 3) If equipment needed to perform the concerned
work, then the details of the equipment are mentioned, and if calibration is needed, then the calibration procedure and
duration are mentioned, 4) If certain work needs certain time interval for performance, then the time interval is
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 94
mentioned, 5) Scope of the work, 6) Purpose of the work, 7) Definitions and References, 8) Verification of actions, 9)
Used standards, and 10) Documentations and Records. All these items were mentioned in each work procedure. All
prepared work procedures were reviewed and approved by the Project Manager and the QA Manager. In total, 79 work
procedures were prepared within the strategic project, see Table 2.
Field Work Progress Follow-up Form
Accompanied By:
Time
AM
PM
Form
No.
Day
Date
Announced
Yes No
ACTIVITY
WORK TITLE
Work Procedure
No.
WORK RESPONSIBLE
Degree
Specialization
Name:
DURATION OF WORK
Days
Number of visits
Last date of visit
From
To
Total
Passed
Remained
EQUIPMENT
Name:
Calibration
Needed
Calibrated
If yes, valid
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
SITE
No.
Regional
Local
Step
Name:
SPECIFIC CHECKED WORK
Traverse
Point
Hand dug well
River
Spring
Pit
Log
No.
Type
BOREHOLE
No.
Purpose
Type
Core
Non-core
No.
Depth
Total
From
To
Casing needed
Casing interval
Number of samples
Yes
No
From
To
Remarks of the Work Responsible (if any)
Remarks on Work Progress (By QA Official)
NONCONFORMANCE
Report No.
Date
Type
Responsible
Name
Signature
Work
Activity
Q.C.
QA
Nonconformance
Accepted
Rejected
Date
Name
Job Title
Signature
This form should be filled by the Q. A. official and should be signed by other responsible with their comments
Figure 1. Field Work Progress and Follow-up Form.
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 95
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE FORM
Project Name
MEETING
Day
Date
Time
Duration (hours)
Form filled by
Form No.
Purpose of meeting
CONTENTS of
REVIEW
Activity
PARTICIPANTS
A- Review Board Members
A- Title and Revision Number of the Document to be
Reviewed
Name
Job Title and Responsibility
1-
2-
3-
4-
Actions
Passed
B- Title and Revision Number of the Document to be
Reviewed
B- Project Team Members
Name
Job Title and Responsibility
1-
2-
3-
Actions
C- Other Invited Participants
Passed
Name
Job Title and Responsibility
DISCUSSANT AUTHOR(S) Name and job title
1-
2-
3-
1-
2-
3-
REMARKS and COMMENTS
This form should be filled by the Q. A. Manager by four copies: 1)Project Manager, 2) Q. A. Unit, 3) Involved Activity, 4) Review
Committee
Figure 2. Committee meeting notice form.
2.3. Quality Control (QC)
Quality Control (QC) is a process by which entities review the quality of all factors involved in production. ISO 9000
defines quality control as "A part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality requirements" (ISO 9000, 2005).
The QA and QC are two aspects of quality management. While some quality assurance and quality control activities are
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 96
interrelated, the two are defined differently. Typically, QA activities and responsibilities cover virtually all of the quality
system in one fashion or another, while QC is a subset of the QA activities.
ACTIVITY
Date
No.
NONCONFORMANCE
Designated in Work
Procedure No.
Work Progress Form
No.
Date
Work Responsible Name
Specialization
Degree
TYPE OF NONCONFORMANCE
Personnel position
Type of equipment
Calibration of
equipment
Non-application of Work
Procedure
Non following of Work
Procedure
Non following of time schedule
Non calibrated equipment
DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE (Written by QA personnel)
A- Actual condition
B- Requirements
NONCONFORMANCE
Accept
Reject
Rework
Conditional
Signature
Date
Work Responsible
Activity Responsible
Q C Name
Q A Official Name
Q A Manager Name
Project Manger
FINAL DECISION
Explanation (In case of conditional and/ or Rejection)
Q. A. VERIFICATION
Required (List below actions and results)
Not required
ACTION
Date
Accepted
If not, write a detailed
report
Performed
Yes
No
Yes
No
NONCONFORMANCE Designated by the officials of the Client
Yes
No
Date
Name and position of the Client’s official with his remarks
FINAL RESULT
This form is filled by
Name
Signature
Date
This form should be filled by the QA Official. A copy is to be submitted to the Project Manager and a second copy to the Activity
Responsible. All names should be clearly indicated with their signatures
Figure 3. Nonconformance Report Form.
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 97
Table 2. Statistical data of the strategic project.
No.
Activity Name
Number of Staff
Number of QA
visits
Number of Work
Procedures
1
Project Management
2
-
-
2
Geology
21
388
10
3
Geophysics
24
308
6
4
Hydrogeology
20
287
7
5
Eng. Geology
9
297
12
6
Drilling
26
308
4
7
Laboratories
33
303
39
8
QA
2
2
1
Total
137
1893
79
Elements in the quality system might not be specifically covered by QA/QC activities and responsibilities but may
involve QA and QC (ISO 9000, 2015). It is worth to mention that without the presence of QC the QA personnel
wouldn’t be able to follow-up the work progress and verify the performed works in the strategic project.
3. Results
The results of QA Program implementation in the strategic project are mentioned below with emphasis on the main
results that are mentioned hereinafter.
3.1. Establishing the QA Unit
Before starting the performance of the strategic project, the QA Unit was established to perform the QA Program in
the strategic project that involves geological investigation. The QA Manager (the current author) prepared all
requirements to implement the QA Program, the following were performed:
- Indoctrination of the QA perspectives to all staff members of the strategic project, each activity alone.
- Preparations of all forms in the implementation of the QA Program during the performance of the strategic
project which included geological investigations.
- Reviewing and approving all used work procedures in the strategic project.
- Following-up all performed works in the strategic project to assure that all work was performed according to the
approved work procedures.
- Checking the qualifications of the staff members to be as mentioned in the involved work procedures.
- Checking the calibration of the equipment and that equipment is calibrated as required and mentioned in the work
procedures.
3.2. Qualifications of the Staff Members
Before starting the performance of the strategic project, the qualifications of all staff members were documented by the
QA Manager using a special form. The documented data of each staff member was approved by the the one responsible
for the activity and then by the Project Manager. The number of different degree holders of staff members of each
activity, besides the Project Management and QA Unit are presented in Table 3. The total number of staff members
was 137. Moreover, the experience and job title of each staff member of the strategic project is presented in Table 4.
This documentation was performed to assure that all performed work in the project was carried out by qualified persons.
Table 3. Distribution of different degree holders within the staff members of the strategic project.
No.
Activity Name
Number of Degree Holders
Ph.D.
M.Sc.
B.Sc.
Dip.
Others
1
Project Management
1
1
-
-
-
2
Geology
1
6
14
-
-
3
Geophysics
-
5
16
2
1
4
Hydrogeology
4
3
9
4
-
5
Eng. Geology
1
2
4
2
-
6
Drilling
-
-
5
5
16
7
Laboratories
2
3
17
9
2
8
QA
-
1
1
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 98
Total
9
21
66
22
19
Grand Total
137
Percentage from Grand total
6.5 %
15.1 %
48.9 %
15.8 %
13.7 %
Table 4. Experience and Job titles of staff members working on the strategic project.
No.
Activity Name
Occupation
Chief
(> 15 years)
Senior
(12 – 15
years)
Basic
(7 – 11 years)
Assistant
(< 7 years)
Others
1
Project Management
2
-
-
-
-
2
Geology
4
7
4
6
-
3
Geophysics
4
2
14
4
-
4
Hydrogeology
3
1
9
3
4
5
Eng. Geology
1
1
4
3
-
6
Drilling
-
1
3
1
21
7
Laboratories
6
4
9
3
11
8
QA
1
-
1
-
-
Total
21
16
44
20
36
Grand total
101
Percentage from Grand total
20.79 %
15.84 %
43.56 %
19.80 %
It is clear from the data presented in Table 3 that among the staff members there are 9, 21, 66, 22 and 19 persons with
Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc., Dip. and Others, respectively. Whereas from the presented data in Table 4, it is clear that among
the experience and job titles of the staff members of the project there are 21, 16, 44, 20 and 36 persons with experiences
of more than 15 years, 12 – 15 years, 7 – 11 years, less than 7 years and other, respectively. These data also confirm that
the project was performed by well experienced staff, as a requirement of the QA Program. It is worth mentioning that
those who were not qualified to collaborate in the project were included in training sessions, and those who couldn’t
pass the training were not allowed to collaborate on the project. In total, 53 staff members were included in training
sessions and 6 of them didn’t pass Table 1. This is another confirmation that the project was performed under strict
QA requirements.
3.3. Work Progress Follow-up by QA Personnel
All executed work in the strategic project including field, office and laboratory work were followed- up by QA personnel.
The daily follow-up of the executed work was documented by using special visit forms. An example of field work visit
form is given in Figure 1. Total number of used forms in all activities and for all performed work was 1893 forms,
seeTable 2. The QA personnel were using work procedures to follow-up the performed work and to confirm that each
work was performed as mentioned in the involved work procedure. In total, 79 work procedures were prepared by the
six activities and the QA Unit, see Table 2.
3.4. Nonconformance
One of the main aims for implementing the QA Program in geological investigations is to follow-up the work progress
by the QA personnel to assure that all executed work is performed following certain work procedures. However, when
any deviation occurs in any performed work then a nonconformance case is registered. A nonconformance case is when
any field, office or laboratory work is performed with deviation from the involved work procedure, also called “Defect”
(Hoyle, 2009; Mitra, 2016).
In the carried out strategic project, the QA Personnel recognized three nonconformance cases Table 1. One of those
cases was recognized by the Client’s representative too because the representative was escorting the QA Manager in the
project. The nonconformance was in the percentage of the extracted core which was 2% less than that mentioned in
the contract (90%).
4. Discussion
This case study dealt with the role of QA implementation in a strategic project that included geological investigations.
The strategic project was performed by GEOSURV and the QA Program was implemented by a QA Unit established
especially for this purpose. The personnel of the QA Unit have implemented all requirements based on QAM (1987),
ISO 9000 (2005 and 2015). The QA Program was implemented successfully during the performance of the strategic
project and all outputs were submitted to the Client and were approved and accepted by the representatives of the
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 99
Client. The main aims of implementation, the QA Program were to assure that all performed work (field, office and
laboratory) were performed according to the approved work procedures, and not to record any nonconformance.
However, three nonconformances were recorded in three activities, Hydrogeology, Drilling and Laboratories Table 1.
For the recorded nonconformance case in the Hydrogeology Activity was during performance of a pumping test. The
calculations of hydrogeological parameters were done before the pumped water was clear. The case was recognized by
the QA Manager after less than one hour; accordingly, the pumping test was repeated and calculations of the
hydrogeological parameters were calculated after the pumped water was clear. For the second recorded nonconformance
case that was recorded in the Laboratories Activity was in the qualification of a personnel who was checking the chemical
composition of a sample. According to the involved work procedure, the work should be performed by a B.Sc. holder
Chemist; however, the work was performed by a Diploma holder Lab. Assistant. After discussing the case with the QC
responsible and the one responsible for the activity, it was found that the person was very well qualified with 25 years
of experience in the particular work. Therefore, the nonconformance was accepted as conditional and approved that
the quality of the performed work was according to the required specifications. The last nonconformance case was
recorded in the Drilling Activity in drilling a borehole with total depth of 200 m, by full core drilling method. This case
was recognized by the representative of the Client because he was escorting the QA Manager. The extracted core from
the depth 190 – 193 m has 88% which was 2% less than that mentioned in the involved work procedure. According to
the signed contract between the Client and GEOSURV (the Contractor), the borehole should be re-drilled. However,
the QA Manager succeeded in convincing the Client’s representative to check the extracted core from a depth 180 m
until 193 m and then to drill another 3 m from depth of 193 – 196 m to check if the extracted core had the same
lithology as the extracted core from 190 – 193 m with 88% core recovery. Accordingly, the drilling was continued and
the extracted core from 193 – 196 m was the same as that drilled from 180 m, which meant it had the same lithology
and the lost 2% of the core would not effect on the acquired data. The case was accepted by the Client and the drilling
of the borehole to the deigned depth 200 m was done successfully and paid to GEOSURV.
It is important to mention that the strategic project was performed by the best personnel of GEOSURV with excellent
experience, and those who couldn’t pass the training courses were not allowed to work on the project Tables 2, 3 and
4. The staff members that worked on the project included geologists, hydrogeologists, geophysicists, engineers, chemists
Table 5. This is another reason that the project was carried out with very high performance quality, as confirmed by the
Client (Sissakian, 1991). Moreover, GEOSURV; as a contractor among other 6 contractors working with the same Client
at different work sites had gained the first quality prize.
Table 5. Number of involved specifications of staff members working on the strategic project.
Geologist
Hydrogeologist
Geophysicist
Engineer
Chemist
Others
35
16
24
6
12
36
5. Conclusions
Implementation of a QA Program in geological investigations within a strategic project that was carried out by
GEOSURV has shown that it had a vital effect on the quality of the performed work of the project during 1988 – 1991
in the central part of Iraq. For the first time, a QA program was implemented in GEOSURV very successfully. The
performed work by the personnel (2 persons) of the QA Units was one of the main reasons that the performance of
the project was successful. The work carried out included filling in: 137 Experience forms, 1893 forms of work progress
follow-up divided as 1558 visits to field work, 349 visits to asses office work, and 373 visits to assess laboratory work,
15 calibration forms, 53 training forms, among them 6 didn’t pass the training and accordingly were not allowed to join
the project, 96 work completion forms, 67 work verification forms and 3 nonconformance forms. The bulk of the work
carried out was by two people of the QA Unit and is a clear indication of the successful role of implementation of QA
Programs in geological investigations.
References
Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities (2009). Guidelines for the implementation of quality assurance frameworks
for international and supranational organizations compiling statistics. Availabe at
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/accsub/2009docs-14th/SA-2009-12-Add1-QAF.pdf.
Dr.Dobb’s (2001). Shift-Left Testing: By combining development and quality assurance earlier and more deeply in your
project plan, you can expand your testing program and reduce manpower and equipment needs. Posted by
Smith, L. Availabe at https://www.drdobbs.com/shift-left-testing/184404768
EQAVET (2020). Implementation of Quality Assurance. National Commission for Further and Higher Education Malta. Availabe
at
UKH Journal of Science and Engineering | Volume 5 • Number 1 • 2021 100
https://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/resources/Documents/Publications/Quality%20Assurance/EQAVET%20Manual
.pdf.
Geboy, N.J. & Engle, M.A. (2011). Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Geochemical Data: A Primer for the Research Scientist.
U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 2011–1187. Availabe at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1187/
Hoyle, D. (2009). Corrective Action. ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook: Using the Standards as a Framework for Business
Improvement. Routledge. pp. 687–704. ISBN 9781856176842.
ISO 9000 (2005). Definition of Quality Control. Internet data. Retrieved December 30, 2020 from
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9000:ed-4:v1:en
ISO 9000 (2015). Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Internet data. Retrieved December 30, 2020 from
https://asq.org/quality-resources/quality-assurance-vs-control.
Mitra, A. (2016). Chapter 8: Control Charts for Attributes. Fundamentals of Quality Control and Improvement. USA: John
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118705445.
MQA (1987). Manual of Quality Assurance for Survey, Evaluation, and Confirmation of Nuclear Power Plant Sites.
International Atomic Energy Association. TECDOC-416, Vienna, pp. 132. Availabe at
https://www.iaea.org/publications/671/manual-on-quality-assurance-for-the-survey-evaluation-and-
confirmation-of-nuclear-power-plant-sites.
Plouffe, A., McClenaghan, M.B., Paulen, R.C., McMartin, I., Campbell, J. & Spirito, W.A. (2013). Quality assurance and
quality control measures applied to indicator mineral studies at the Geological Survey of Canada. Conference: PDAC 2013At:
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Availabe at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274909169_Quality_assurance_and_quality_control_measures_ap
plied_to_indicator_mineral_studies_at_the_Geological_Survey_of_Canada.
Setyadil, H. & Anggayana, K. (2013). Database Management and Quality Assurance is Key of Success in Exploration.
Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 6 (2013), 42–49. Availabe at www.sciencedirect.com.
Sissakian, V.K. (1991). Report on Quality Assurance Implementation. Iraq Geological Survey Library Report No. 2025, pp.
162.
Stebbing, L. (1993). Quality Assurance: The Route to Efficiency and Competitiveness, 3
rd
ed. Prentice Hall. p. 300. ISBN 978-0-
13-334559-9. Availabe at https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Assurance-Efficiency-Competitiveness-
Industrial/dp/0133345599