Its possible that smaller projects need to focus their budget more closely on the scope of project rather than the extrinsic details. Surely you can argue that without quality control the product is likely to not meet expected tolerances and would not be entirely functional, but I imagine some smaller projects start more as a proof of concept. In this instance further project funding is withheld to ensure that the project idea can stand on its own feet before possibly wasting investor/company resources.

I agree with @anthonynjit above - sometimes budget is not there for smaller projects therefore there is less QA/QC support on that end. A company needs to prioritize at the end of the day. I think in this case where maybe there is not much QA/QC support for a project, it can be a POC like above, or the quality of the product comes down to internal verification/validation from the team. I also believe something that isn't going to receive any QC support will not hit the market, so the company wouldn't worry about it until it's time that the project becomes fully fledged and receives more funding. 

Usually in small projects the product is made quickly to fix a stop gap and is not a permeant solution. Many small projects that result in a product are usually handmade and have quality control built into it. The problem occurs when there are large sample sizes and how to manage quality among such a huge number of samples. Most if not all medical devices have these checks on multiple levels and through out the production cycle to maintain a level of quality and efficiency. Many times in search of efficiency the quality is effected this is true even for small projects. 

Quality control is a vital component of product development, and it is important to implement it regardless of the project size. Small projects may face difficulties in executing formal quality control processes due to limited resources, less expertise, and time constraints. However, small projects can still ensure the quality of their products by conducting thorough testing, establishing clear product requirements, monitoring customer feedback, and continuously improving their products. Even if formal quality control processes are not in place, it is essential to conduct rigorous testing of the product to identify any defects or issues. In addition, clear product requirements can help ensure that the product meets the necessary quality standards. Lastly, monitoring customer feedback can help identify any quality issues that need to be addressed. By doing these things, small projects can maintain product quality, build customer trust, and improve their overall reputation.

The application of strategies to ensure that the deliverable or product fulfills the needs of the end user is known as quality control in project management. The project management plan component that conserves resources is quality control since it lessens the need for repeat efforts. The standards for project management quality control are determined by quality planning. Project managers and the team evaluate if the good or service satisfies standards and offers a way to fix issues or concerns during quality control using techniques and tools. Success is more likely if management is done with precision. In addition to providing opportunities to learn from project modifications, quality control activities also help future projects move through more quickly. Before distributing the good or service to the customer, quality control finds and fixes flaws. During project planning, the team members decide on the quality control measures. An iterative process like quality control can provide high-quality goods and services while saving time and resources. For those who don't mind looking through the entire menu before placing their order, a smartphone app for ordering groceries, for instance, might be a good fit. However, a worker with a brief lunch break would choose a simple method of placing an order and swiftly picking up meals. The company may decide to create a fast lunch menu for busy people after the app has been tested.

Quality control may be conducted in larger companies and projects because the outcome has more on the line rather than small companies. In most cases the large companies are planning to sell a larger amount to the general public while in smaller companies, they may be sold to the general public but in a smaller amount so the feedback is not as detrimental. So there needs to be extra care to ensure that the product is checked and when the amount of product can be such a large amount it is better to have a division complete it. As for how a smaller company would do it, it would most likely be the team themselves checking a percentage of the products and ensuring that they reach the standard to send out.

I think the main reason why smaller projects may not implement quality control is due to resource constraints. When there are limited budgets or personnel, allocating resources towards quality control activities can be difficult and may substantially reduce the speed and quality of the development process. In contrast, a large project would actually benefit from quality control because there are more points of failure and dedicating resources to quality control may be proportionally less costly. In other words, it's a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of the quality control outweighs the benefits, then it should not be implemented or the project should be cancelled.

Alternatively, another approach is to contract quality contract to external resources, such as third part quality control services, to supplement the project's internal capabilities. The small project could have significant cost savings that would justify the cost-benefit analysis of having quality control.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that for medical devices quality control should be considered an integral part of product development, regardless of the size of the project. Since by prioritizing quality and implementing appropriate processes, small projects can still ensure that their products meet the necessary quality standards. 

I think that smaller companies don't intentionally overlook quality control; however, we've seen in this course that quality control planning requires a lot of work, such as the work results, project quality management plan, metrics, checklists, and some additional inputs. All of this requires a lot of organization/time to complete and by extension a lot of manpower, which is something that smaller companies don't really have the required personnel to do that. This also branches into one of the major themes of the class relating to project management and how successful completion of a project is really contingent extensive planning and organization. Unfortunately, so many companies go under or projects never even get initiated simply because of poor planning. 

Nevertheless, I think there are ways that smaller companies can help ensure they comply with best quality control practices. For example, since smaller companies have less organizational knowledge and established practices (e.g., SOPs/management plans), it's especially important to hold scheduled meetings where the team reworks the quality control changes and brings the device back into compliance. Even though this can take more time for small companies, I think it is worth the slight delay in project timeline relative to the associated project risk when quality control reviews are not regularly held. 

As quality control is often overlooked in small projects due to resource constraints, it is feasible. Neglecting quality control can lead to severe project oversights and long-term success. To ensure that quality control in small projects is upheld, peer review, constant testing, client engagement, and documentation are crucial. This enables the team to produce high-quality results and have positive stakeholder satisfaction.

Based off the lecture on quality control this week, I don't think that "its not done well" in smaller projects, I think it's just not as common in smaller projects. Additionally, the larger and more developed organizations (such as JNJ, Stryker, etc) have more experienced professionals in the quality management groups along with a larger budget for quality as well, this is where smaller companies that may work on smaller level projects more often may not have quality control at the same level. It would be difficult to ignore quality control during small projects because it is such an important aspect of the project, I believe the focus was more that larger projects require more quality management because they come with larger risks and more profits. Thus, while smaller projects with smaller budgets may be restrained on quality, I don't think that it can be completely ignored because the risks with ignoring quality are abundant. 

In smaller projects, quality control may be a constant process rather than having an entire team dedicated to that sector. For instance, for smaller projects, each member of the team can review the work of other team members, serving as the QC for that project. This method of quality control is adequate for small projects but is not sustainable on a larger scale. For larger projects, there are more team members and too many documents/tests to be reviewed by each team member for approval.