Good work.
Kept good.

The project lead records the organisation’s purpose, market, delivery constraints and existing systems before proposing a build. Climate-related disruption and buyer expectations are considered for relevance, including hosting resilience and physical production.

Working evidence

Context review, relevant issues and review date

Responsibility

Project lead with the client

Research identifies customers, end users, staff, suppliers and any public-service stakeholders who affect the outcome. Relevant needs and requirements are recorded, including climate expectations, and the project states which are addressed through its quality system. Applicable legal and contractual duties remain part of the agreed requirements.

Working evidence

Stakeholder map and addressed-requirements register

Responsibility

Research lead and client sponsor

The agreed scope names the website, software, integrations, connected print and ongoing care included in this engagement. Any non-applicable quality requirement is justified without weakening delivery or customer obligations.

Working evidence

Signed scope and applicability rationale

Responsibility

Accountable lead

Discovery, content, design, development, verification, release and care operate as connected processes. Each has defined inputs, outputs, ownership, resources, acceptance rules and performance checks. Current working instructions support delivery; approvals, test results and release records demonstrate that the process happened as planned.

Working evidence

Delivery map, controlled instructions and gate evidence

Responsibility

Project lead and quality reviewer

Leadership makes quality and ethical behaviour part of daily decisions: accurate claims, honest approval records and the freedom to raise a concern. The accountable lead provides capacity, reviews performance and resolves conflicts between quality, cost and timing. A failed gate receives action instead of an undocumented override.

Working evidence

Leadership decisions, resourcing and quality-culture reviews

Responsibility

Programme leadership

The team translates the client’s service promise and buyer research into acceptance criteria. Contractual and applicable statutory requirements are reviewed; satisfaction is revisited at handover and during agreed care.

Working evidence

Buyer-to-build map and acceptance criteria

Responsibility

Client sponsor and project lead

The quality policy connects the organisation’s context and direction to useful client outcomes, applicable requirements and continuing improvement. It provides a basis for objectives and becomes a controlled, shared working promise. Contributors discuss its relevance to their task, and appropriate interested parties can access the current commitments.

Working evidence

Approved policy, linked objectives and communication record

Responsibility

Accountable lead and project coordinator

The responsibility map separates the client’s business-fact approval, the maker’s work, the reviewer’s checks and release authority. Deputies are identified so a missing person cannot turn an urgent launch into an unapproved change.

Working evidence

Role map, deputies and approval authority

Responsibility

Accountable lead and client sponsor

Context, stakeholder requirements and process behaviour inform the risks and opportunities that could affect quality-system results. The team considers dependable delivery, conforming outputs and customer satisfaction. Potential harm and potential benefit are identified distinctly so a promising improvement does not disappear inside a defects list.

Working evidence

Context-linked risk and opportunity identification

Responsibility

Project lead with specialists

Risk owners analyse likely consequences and exposure, decide priorities and plan responses proportionate to the effect on intended results. Controls become delivery tasks with owners and review points. Checks examine whether the response worked, including whether approved information and service operation remain dependable during disruption and recovery.

Working evidence

Risk assessment, integrated actions and effectiveness checks

Responsibility

Risk owner and quality reviewer

The team analyses potential benefit, feasibility and fit before choosing an opportunity. A simpler approval route, reusable content or more accessible journey receives a planned action, owner and measure. The action is integrated into delivery, implemented and evaluated for actual benefit to conformity and customer satisfaction.

Working evidence

Opportunity evaluation, integrated action and benefit review

Responsibility

Opportunity owner and client sponsor

Objectives fit the policy, applicable requirements and the result the client needs. Appropriate measures, targets, owners, resources, timing and evaluation methods are agreed, communicated and reviewed. A booking objective might pair a tested availability rule with an end-to-end acceptance exercise; commercial improvements are measured rather than promised without evidence.

Working evidence

Documented quality objectives, plans and evaluated outcomes

Responsibility

Client sponsor and delivery owner

Before a quality-system change, the team reviews its purpose, consequences, dependencies, resources and responsibilities. The plan defines implementation, communication, required competence and the checks that will evaluate the change. Client approval covers scope effects; after implementation, results are reviewed and unresolved impacts receive owned action.

Working evidence

Change plan, impact review, communication and evaluated results

Responsibility

Change authority and client sponsor

Planning identifies the people, environments, software and external services required for the agreed result. Available internal capability is compared with gaps; specialist support is commissioned only within the authorised scope.

Working evidence

Resource plan and capability gaps

Responsibility

Project lead

Research, writing, design, engineering and review tasks go to people with suitable capability and capacity. Contributed hours follow the same role requirements as paid work; volunteering does not waive delivery checks.

Working evidence

Assignments and capacity review

Responsibility

Discipline leads

The build, preview, production and recovery environments have explicit purposes. The published service and its runtime dependencies remain on the commissioned production provider, so the local build server can be offline without taking the website down.

Working evidence

Environment inventory and availability checks

Responsibility

Technical lead

The working environment supports focused delivery, respectful challenge, accessible communication and realistic review time. Contributors can question an unsupported claim or unsafe shortcut without losing the review route. Physical, social and organisational conditions are considered where they affect process operation and the quality of the result.

Working evidence

Working agreements, process-environment review and review schedule

Responsibility

Project coordinator

Browser tests, accessibility tools, performance measurements and acceptance exercises are chosen for their purpose. Versions and conditions are recorded so results can be interpreted and repeated instead of treating one automated score as proof of everything.

Working evidence

Test methods, tool versions and conditions

Responsibility

Quality reviewer

Where print colour, physical dimensions or another contractual measurement needs traceability, suitable verified or calibrated equipment and records are required. Ordinary software checks use validated methods; equipment traceability is assessed for relevance, not assumed for every task.

Working evidence

Calibration or method-validation evidence

Responsibility

Relevant production or test specialist

The team records architecture decisions, operating instructions and lessons that another authorised contributor needs. Handover covers configuration, ownership and known limitations; new knowledge is added when changes expose a gap.

Working evidence

Decision log and maintained handover guide

Responsibility

Technical lead and project coordinator

Required skills are identified before allocation. Experience, work review or appropriate training demonstrates capability; where a gap is found, supervised work and a later effectiveness check replace an unsupported assumption.

Working evidence

Competence review and training outcomes

Responsibility

Discipline lead

Contributors understand the policy, relevant objectives, their contribution and the consequences of missed requirements. Awareness includes quality culture and ethical behaviour: verify a business claim, record approval honestly, disclose uncertainty and raise an issue before publication. Briefings connect those expectations to the actual task.

Working evidence

Task brief and quality-culture awareness record

Responsibility

Project coordinator

The communication plan names what is shared, with whom, when and through which approved channel. Decisions are recorded after meetings; urgent issues reach a named owner rather than becoming scattered messages.

Working evidence

Communication plan and decision record

Responsibility

Project lead

The project pack contains the scope, requirements, approved content, reviews, tests and release evidence needed to operate and assess the process. Its depth follows the project’s complexity and risk rather than a fixed pile of paperwork.

Working evidence

Project record index

Responsibility

Quality reviewer

Records carry a title, owner, date and version suitable for their format. New or revised material is checked and approved before it becomes the authorised source for building, publishing or reusing in print.

Working evidence

Version history and approval record

Responsibility

Document owner and approver

Current records are available and usable for authorised people while confidentiality and integrity remain protected. Distribution, retrieval, changes, retention and disposal have owners; external sources are identified and obsolete versions are withdrawn from use. Retained evidence stays protected from unintended alteration, loss or inappropriate disclosure.

Working evidence

Controlled locations, access rules and record lifecycle evidence

Responsibility

Record owner and project coordinator

Requirements, resources, acceptance criteria and records are agreed before production. Planned changes are controlled; unintended changes are assessed. Outsourced work remains inside the project’s checks rather than being treated as somebody else’s problem.

Working evidence

Delivery plan and gate checklist

Responsibility

Project lead

The client receives a clear route for questions, feedback, complaints, changes and approval. Information about services, project progress and client-provided material is communicated through the agreed channels, including any contingency arrangements.

Working evidence

Contact route, feedback and correspondence

Responsibility

Client contact and project lead

Discovery captures explicit requests, necessary unstated operating needs and applicable obligations. The team tests whether it can deliver the proposed claims before a website description, integration or service promise enters the scope.

Working evidence

Requirements and capability review

Responsibility

Research and technical leads

The lead checks deliverables, intended use, timing, dependencies and applicable requirements before an engagement or changed order is accepted. Differences are resolved with the client and verbal instructions are confirmed. Review outcomes and newly identified requirements remain available as evidence beside the authorised scope.

Working evidence

Pre-commitment review, resolved differences and agreed scope

Responsibility

Accountable lead and project coordinator

When a requirement changes, the affected brief, content, design, tests and handover are updated together. Relevant contributors are informed so a fresh instruction does not coexist with an older acceptance criterion.

Working evidence

Updated requirements and notification trail

Responsibility

Change owner

New websites and software use a defined design and development process, proportionate to complexity. A buyer need moves through research, concepts, prototypes and implementation with review points before it becomes a live service.

Working evidence

Design plan and review gates

Responsibility

Design and engineering leads

The plan considers stages, responsibilities, review, verification, validation, client involvement and specialist interfaces. The expected lifespan, support needs and evidence required shape the depth of prototype and testing work.

Working evidence

Design schedule and responsibilities

Responsibility

Project lead and design owner

The team gathers functional needs, buyer evidence, previous lessons, legal or contractual constraints and likely consequences of failure. Ambiguous or conflicting inputs are resolved before they are translated into interface or system behaviour.

Working evidence

Approved design inputs and resolved conflicts

Responsibility

Research and technical leads

Reviews ask whether the approach is sound; verification checks outputs against inputs; validation checks whether the intended users can achieve the agreed purpose. Issues, resulting actions and approval evidence are retained at each appropriate stage.

Working evidence

Review findings, test results and user acceptance

Responsibility

Reviewers and client approver

Approved layouts, content, specifications and acceptance criteria contain enough information for implementation and operation. Important characteristics, dependencies and safe-use instructions accompany the result instead of remaining in the designer’s head.

Working evidence

Approved specifications and acceptance criteria

Responsibility

Design or engineering owner

A changed layout, data model or workflow is reviewed for effects on existing work and delivered services. The change, authorisation, checks and any action needed to prevent harm are recorded before it is released.

Working evidence

Design change review and authorisation

Responsibility

Change authority

Hosting, media, software, print and specialist providers are evaluated against capability, reliability and agreed obligations. Selection, monitoring and later re-evaluation are recorded, including actions when performance falls short.

Working evidence

Supplier assessment and performance record

Responsibility

Provider owner

The team considers how an external service could affect the final result and checks whether the provider’s controls are sufficient. Acceptance, monitoring and fallback depth follow the dependency’s impact, with overall delivery accountability retained.

Working evidence

Dependency controls and verification plan

Responsibility

Technical or production lead

Orders and briefs state required outputs, approval conditions, competence, interaction and verification expectations. Requirements are checked for completeness before being passed on, including any client or team review needed before acceptance.

Working evidence

Approved supplier brief and acceptance rules

Responsibility

Commissioning owner

Makers work from approved inputs using suitable tools, competent people and defined checks. Release conditions, error prevention and post-delivery arrangements are established; a process that cannot be fully checked later receives appropriate validation before use.

Working evidence

Build record, checks and release conditions

Responsibility

Delivery owner

Content revisions, build versions and releases have clear identifiers and approval states. Traceability links the delivered version to requirements, tests and authorisation so the team can investigate or restore the right result.

Working evidence

Version identifier and traceable release manifest

Responsibility

Technical lead

Client files, credentials, branding and intellectual property are identified and protected while in the team’s care. Loss, damage or unsuitable material is reported to the owner and recorded rather than quietly replaced or reused elsewhere.

Working evidence

Property register and incident notification

Responsibility

Asset custodian

Content, files and production artefacts remain intact during storage, transfer and handover. Controlled locations, checksums where useful and appropriate packaging help prevent a corrupted upload or incorrect version reaching the client.

Working evidence

Transfer checks and preservation arrangements

Responsibility

Technical or production owner

The scope sets support responsibilities, maintenance, retention and any warranty or contractual duties. Care decisions consider likely problems, service lifespan, client feedback and applicable obligations; ongoing work is agreed rather than implied.

Working evidence

Care scope and post-delivery responsibilities

Responsibility

Client sponsor and care lead

A production or service change is reviewed for continuing conformity before use. The authorising person, review findings and necessary actions are recorded, with proportionate checks of affected journeys and dependencies.

Working evidence

Operational change review and authorisation

Responsibility

Release authority

The client’s content and acceptance approvals meet the technical release checks before publication. Evidence identifies the accepted version and authorising person; an exception requires explicit authorised agreement and a recorded decision.

Working evidence

Release checklist, acceptance and approver

Responsibility

Release authority and client approver

A result that misses requirements is identified and controlled to prevent unintended use or delivery. The team corrects, withdraws, suspends or obtains an authorised concession as appropriate, communicates with the client when needed and verifies corrected work. The record identifies the failure, action, concession and deciding authority.

Working evidence

Nonconformity, disposition and correction-verification evidence

Responsibility

Quality reviewer and delivery owner

The project agrees what is monitored, how and when, and who reviews it. Delivery checks and service measures are retained with their conditions; analytics are used only where commissioned and configured appropriately.

Working evidence

Measurement plan and evaluated results

Responsibility

Quality reviewer and service owner

Feedback is gathered at review, handover and agreed follow-up points. Complaints, repeated questions and direct conversations are considered alongside any survey so satisfaction is not reduced to a single score.

Working evidence

Feedback and satisfaction review

Responsibility

Client contact

Evaluated results inform conformity, satisfaction, process effectiveness, supplier performance and improvement. The effectiveness of risk responses and opportunity actions is considered separately. Repeated delays or failed journeys become owned corrective work, while a successful trial can become an approved new way of operating.

Working evidence

Evaluation, separate action outcomes and improvement decisions

Responsibility

Project lead

Internal audit examines whether the defined quality arrangements meet relevant requirements and operate effectively. A completed release checklist alone does not establish that earlier approvals, supplier checks or corrective actions worked.

Working evidence

Audit findings against criteria and evidence

Responsibility

Competent impartial auditor

The audit programme reflects process importance, changes and previous findings. Each audit has objectives, scope, criteria and timing; reviewers preserve impartiality and findings reach relevant management. Corrections and corrective actions are followed through, with evidence of the programme, results and closure retained.

Working evidence

Audit programme, objectives, reports and follow-up evidence

Responsibility

Quality lead and assigned auditor

At planned intervals, leadership reviews whether the quality system remains suitable, adequately resourced and effective. Project delivery evidence is brought together with the programme’s priorities instead of treating review as a ceremonial sign-off.

Working evidence

Management review record

Responsibility

Programme leadership

Leadership considers previous actions, context changes and changes in relevant stakeholders’ needs, alongside customer feedback, objectives, conformity, process results, audits, suppliers and resources. The review evaluates risk responses and opportunity actions separately, then examines improvement options with enough evidence to decide priorities.

Working evidence

Management review inputs and evaluated action outcomes

Responsibility

Quality lead

Review outputs identify improvements, needed system changes and resource decisions. Each action receives an accountable owner and follow-up date, allowing the next review to judge whether the promised change took place.

Working evidence

Decisions, owners and follow-up dates

Responsibility

Programme leadership

Monitoring, measurement, analysis and management review identify opportunities that lead to action. The team improves processes, outputs and services, prepares for future client needs and corrects, prevents or reduces unwanted effects. Approved lessons update tests, handovers and working arrangements, with later checks of whether the changes improved the system.

Working evidence

Improvement decisions, adopted changes and effectiveness evidence

Responsibility

Programme leadership and delivery leads

A nonconformity is contained and its consequences addressed. The team reviews what happened, investigates causes and similar exposure, applies proportionate corrective action and evaluates its effectiveness. Risk or system information is updated where needed. The nature of the failure, actions and outcomes remain available as evidence for accountable closure.

Working evidence

Nonconformity, cause analysis and corrective-action outcomes

Responsibility

Corrective-action owner and quality reviewer