The Hidden Cost of Poor QA in Architecture

In the pressure of day-to-day project delivery, quality assurance can quietly slip down the list of priorities.
Teams focus on deadlines, planning submissions, or client updates — and the assumption is often that the “small checks” can wait.

Yet, it’s exactly those small things — a mislabelled file, an unchecked clash, a missing annotation — that accumulate into much bigger risks: rework, delays, and even safety concerns.

Where QA Gaps Really Hurt Projects

1. Rework and Programme Drift
Uncoordinated drawings or missing details often translate into site delays, redesigns, or contractor variations — all of which consume time and budget that no one planned for.

2. Compliance Risks
Without structured design-stage reviews, projects risk falling short of the Building Safety Act (BSA) Gateway requirements or ISO 9001 and ISO 19650 quality standards.

3. Loss of Trust
Accuracy is the foundation of professional credibility. Inconsistent information damages confidence between design teams, contractors, and clients — and erodes the reliability every architect depends on.

4. Safety Oversights
The Building Safety Act has made it unambiguous: unchecked coordination and missing technical information are not just administrative errors — they can compromise safety.

Why It Happens

• Limited time and resource for proper peer review

• QA seen as “extra paperwork” instead of a project safeguard

• No unified approach to file naming, model setup, or review intervals

• Fragmented communication across disciplines

These issues aren’t new — but in today’s regulatory climate, the cost of ignoring them has never been higher.

A More Structured Approach to Quality

Industry frameworks already provide the roadmap — ISO 9001 for process, ISO 19650 for information management, and the RIBA Plan of Work for delivery structure.
What’s often missing is the bridge between them: accessible tools and consistent habits that make quality checks part of everyday design activity.

At DraftCheck, we’ve been developing that bridge — transforming QA from a reactive task into a practical routine. Our templates translate standards into simple, stage-based reviews: from naming protocols and coordination logs to Gateway checklists and design-freeze records.

They’re not about box-ticking; they’re about embedding confidence and traceability in every stage of design.

Quality as Culture

The best project outcomes come from teams that treat QA as a shared responsibility — not an obligation handed to one person at the end of a stage.
When checks, reviews, and sign-offs become routine, coordination improves, risk reduces, and design quality speaks for itself.

Good QA doesn’t just save time — it builds trust.

Every unchecked detail has a consequence.
Sometimes it’s a quick fix; other times, it’s a costly redesign or a safety non-compliance.
Placing quality assurance at the core of your design process isn’t about avoiding mistakes — it’s about building certainty in what you deliver.

The Building Safety Act and subsequent industry investigations have repeatedly highlighted the same underlying issue — a lack of clear accountability, traceable information, and consistent quality control across design stages.
Adopting structured QA processes is the first practical step in addressing those gaps.

By embedding review points, record-keeping, and coordination standards early in the process, practices not only meet compliance — they demonstrate the professional rigour that these investigations have called for across the sector.
It’s a cultural shift that moves quality from being reactive to being fundamental — and it’s where safer, more reliable architecture truly begins.