By Yelna Yuristiary
For many organizations, quality is still measured by a familiar question: How many defects did we find?
The number of nonconformities, rejected materials, customer complaints, rework hours and failed inspections are often used as the main indicators of quality performance. These numbers are important, but they tell only part of the story.
Modern Quality Management Systems are moving toward a broader question: Are our quality processes actually helping the organization achieve better results?
This is becoming increasingly important with ISO 9001:2026. The new edition continues to require organizations to monitor, measure, analyse and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of their Quality Management System. ISO also emphasizes measurable quality objectives, relevant performance indicators and the use of data for informed decision-making.
From Quality Metrics to Quality KPIs
Not every measurement is a Key Performance Indicator.
A quality department may collect hundreds of numbers every month: number of inspections, number of test reports, number of NCRs, number of concrete tests, number of audits, number of documents reviewed and so on.
But having more data does not automatically mean having better quality management.
A KPI should help management understand whether an important quality objective is being achieved. In simple terms, a good KPI should answer three questions: What are we trying to achieve? How are we performing? What should we do next?
This is why the future of quality management is not simply about collecting more data. It is about selecting the right data.
Lagging KPIs: What Has Already Happened?
Traditional quality indicators are often lagging indicators. They measure the results of something that has already happened.
For example, a construction project may measure the number of concrete failures, waterproofing defects, finishing defects, NCRs or customer complaints.
These indicators are useful because they show the actual quality outcome. If the defect rate increases, management has evidence that something is going wrong.
However, the problem is timing.
By the time a defect appears in a final inspection, the organization may already have spent money on materials, labour and rework.
This is why relying only on lagging indicators can make quality management reactive.
Leading KPIs: Can We See the Problem Earlier?
Leading indicators attempt to provide information before a major quality failure occurs.
For example, instead of only measuring the number of concrete cube failures, a project could also monitor the percentage of pre-pour inspections completed correctly, concrete temperature trends, slump-test compliance, supplier performance and the timeliness of testing.
The purpose is not to replace the final quality result. Instead, these indicators provide earlier signals that can help the project team take action.
This creates an important shift:
Lagging KPI: What went wrong?
Leading KPI: What conditions could cause something to go wrong?
The combination is much more powerful than either one alone.
A Construction Example
Consider waterproofing works in a building project.
A traditional quality report might show the number of waterproofing defects found during inspection. For example, 15 defects were identified in one month.
That information is useful, but management still needs to ask why the defects occurred.
A broader KPI system could monitor inspection rejection rate, surface preparation compliance, inspection requests submitted before waterproofing, water ponding test results, recurring defect locations and corrective-action closure time.
Now the quality team has more information about the process, not just the final defect.
The same principle can be applied to concrete works. A project may track Concrete Cube Test Pass Rate as a lagging quality KPI while also monitoring mix-design compliance, batching accuracy, concrete temperature, slump compliance, delivery time and sampling procedures as leading indicators.
This creates a much clearer picture of quality performance.
The KPI Should Lead to a Decision
One of the biggest problems with quality KPIs is that organizations sometimes measure indicators simply because they are easy to calculate.
A monthly report may contain dozens of charts, but nobody asks what decision should be made from them.
A useful KPI should have a connection to action.
If the waterproofing defect rate increases, the team should investigate the process.
If corrective-action closure time is increasing, management may need to examine resources, responsibility or the effectiveness of the corrective-action process.
If supplier nonconformities are increasing, procurement and quality teams may need to review supplier performance.
The KPI therefore becomes more than a reporting number. It becomes a management signal.
Quality KPIs Should Be Connected to Business Performance
Another important development is the connection between quality and organizational performance.
Quality is not isolated from cost, schedule, customer satisfaction and productivity.
Poor quality can create rework, delays, additional material consumption, disputes and customer dissatisfaction.
For example, a project may have a low NCR rate but still experience significant rework. This could happen because not every quality problem is formally recorded as an NCR.
Therefore, quality KPIs should be connected with other business indicators.
A mature system might look at quality cost, rework, productivity, schedule impact, customer complaints and defect recurrence together.
This helps management understand the business impact of quality, rather than treating quality as a separate department's responsibility.
Pareto Analysis Can Make KPIs More Useful
Quality KPI data becomes even more useful when combined with established quality tools.
One example is the Pareto chart.
Suppose a building project records 100 finishing defects. Instead of simply reporting that there were 100 defects, the quality team can classify them into categories such as paint defects, tile defects, cracks, doors and windows, ceiling defects and other problems.
A Pareto analysis can then identify which categories contribute most to the total number of defects.
This changes the management question from:
“How many defects do we have?”
to:
“Which problems should we investigate first?”
The KPI tells us the size of the problem. The quality tool helps us understand where to focus the investigation.
From KPI Reporting to Quality Intelligence
This is where quality management is beginning to connect with the trends discussed in Digital QMS, Quality 4.0 and predictive quality.
When KPI data is collected digitally and analysed over time, organizations can begin to identify patterns.
For example, a project may discover that waterproofing defects increase after certain subcontractors are assigned to a particular area. A marine project may identify relationships between environmental conditions and coating defects. An infrastructure project may identify recurring quality problems associated with a particular material supplier.
The value is no longer in the individual KPI.
The value comes from the relationship between multiple indicators.
This is an important step toward predictive quality management.
Good KPIs Need Good Measurement
There is also a less visible issue behind every KPI: measurement reliability.
A KPI is only as useful as the data behind it.
If inspection records are incomplete, test results are unreliable, definitions are inconsistent or different project teams calculate the same KPI differently, management may make decisions based on misleading information.
This is why measurement systems and measurement resources remain important in quality management. ISO 10012:2026, for example, provides requirements for measurement management systems intended to ensure confidence in the validity and reliability of measurement results.
In other words, organizations should not only ask, “What is our KPI?”
They should also ask, “Can we trust the number?”
The Future Quality Dashboard
The future quality dashboard will probably contain fewer meaningless numbers and more meaningful indicators.
Instead of displaying 50 separate measurements, a project dashboard might show a balanced set of indicators covering prevention, process performance and results.
For example, a construction project could monitor quality planning performance, inspection compliance, supplier quality, testing performance, NCR trends, corrective-action closure, rework and customer-related defects.
The exact KPIs will depend on the organization's objectives, processes and risks. ISO 9001 does not prescribe one universal KPI list for every organization. Instead, organizations need to determine the objectives and measurements that are relevant to their own context and intended results.
Quality KPIs Are Becoming Management Tools
The most important change is therefore not the introduction of another dashboard.
It is a change in the way organizations think about measurement.
In the past, quality KPIs were often used to demonstrate that the quality department had completed its activities.
The emerging approach is different.
Quality KPIs should help management understand performance, identify emerging problems, allocate resources and improve processes.
The question is no longer simply:
“How many defects did we have?”
It is:
“What does our quality data tell us about the performance of our organization, and what should we do next?”
That is the real purpose of a Quality KPI.
And as organizations move toward Digital QMS, Quality 4.0 and predictive quality, the most valuable quality professional may not be the person who produces the most reports.
It may be the person who can look at the right indicators, understand what they mean, connect them to the process, and turn the data into a better decision.
