Quality Leadership, Ethics, Governance and Future Practice

Introduction

Quality assurance and quality control in construction are not limited to inspection, testing, or the correction of defective work. They are fundamentally leadership and governance responsibilities. A project may possess approved drawings, inspection forms, laboratories, and quality procedures, yet still fail if people are pressured to conceal defects, if responsibilities are unclear, if information is unreliable, or if production targets are valued above safety and long-term performance.

Quality leadership establishes the conditions in which compliant, safe, durable, and sustainable work can be produced consistently. It connects organisational values with site behaviour. Ethical practice ensures that decisions are honest, impartial, and concerned with the welfare of workers, users, communities, and the environment. Governance provides the structures through which decisions are authorised, documented, reviewed, and corrected.

The modern construction environment adds new challenges. Modular construction creates factory-to-site interfaces; automation changes competence requirements; digital records create data-governance obligations; artificial intelligence can support prediction but also introduce bias or opaque decisions; and regulators increasingly expect evidence of safety, environmental responsibility, competence, and accountability.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the learner should be able to:

1. Explain the relationship between quality leadership, quality culture, ethics, and project governance.
2. Apply professional accountability and transparent reporting to construction decisions.
3. Explain how competence, safety, and quality should be integrated.
4. Identify environmental, sustainability, and data-governance responsibilities.
5. Evaluate quality risks associated with modular construction and automation.
6. Use structured decision-making when information is incomplete or conflicting.
7. Recommend practical controls for emerging regulatory and technological requirements.

1. Quality Leadership and Quality Culture

1.1 Meaning of quality leadership

Quality leadership is the deliberate direction of people, processes, resources, and decisions toward meeting specified requirements and protecting intended outcomes. It is demonstrated through behaviour rather than slogans. A quality leader:

• establishes clear expectations;
• provides competent personnel, suitable equipment, and adequate time;
• encourages reporting of errors and near misses;
• uses evidence rather than assumptions;
• responds to problems through root-cause analysis;
• refuses to accept unsafe or knowingly nonconforming work;
• communicates decisions and their reasons; and
• accepts responsibility for the consequences of decisions.

Leadership is required at every level. Senior managers set policy and resources, project managers coordinate competing objectives, supervisors translate requirements into work instructions, and workers identify conditions that may not be visible to management. A quality system is therefore strongest when leadership is distributed but accountability remains clear.

1.2 Quality culture

Quality culture is the shared pattern of values, assumptions, and behaviours concerning quality. A positive culture treats quality as part of production rather than as an activity performed by a separate inspection department. In a mature culture, a worker can stop work when a critical requirement is unclear without fear of retaliation.

A useful distinction is between a compliance culture and a learning culture. A compliance culture asks, “Did the form get completed?” A learning culture also asks, “What condition produced the error, and how can recurrence be prevented?” Documentation remains important, but paperwork is not confused with control.

Quality culture can be assessed through indicators such as:

• the timeliness and honesty of nonconformance reports;
• the number and quality of corrective-action investigations;
• worker participation in toolbox meetings;
• repeated defects and rework;
• close-out of audit findings;
• willingness to report near misses; and
• whether project targets reward safe and compliant work rather than output alone.

High numbers of reports do not necessarily indicate poor performance. During cultural improvement, reporting may initially increase because people feel safer reporting problems. The trend must therefore be interpreted with context rather than used as a simplistic performance score.

2. Professional Accountability and Ethics

2.1 Accountability, responsibility, and authority

These terms are related but not identical:

• Responsibility is the duty to perform an assigned task.
• Authority is the power to approve, direct, stop, or change work.
• Accountability is the obligation to explain decisions and accept consequences.

A common governance failure occurs when responsibility is delegated without sufficient authority. For example, a quality inspector may be responsible for identifying defective work but lack authority to stop installation or obtain corrective resources. A sound organisation aligns responsibility, authority, competence, and accountability.

A responsibility assignment matrix, often called a RACI matrix, can clarify roles. RACI means Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. It should not be used to assign several people as equally accountable for one decision, because shared accountability can become unclear accountability. Usually, one role should be identified as accountable, even though several people may contribute.

2.2 Ethical duties in construction

Construction professionals have duties to clients, employers, workers, users, the public, regulators, subcontractors, and the environment. Important ethical principles include:

• Honesty: records, test results, progress claims, and certificates must not be falsified.
• Competence: individuals should work within their training and seek assistance when requirements exceed their competence.
• Impartiality: inspection and approval decisions should not be influenced improperly by gifts, commercial pressure, or personal relationships.
• Confidentiality: commercially or personally sensitive information should be protected, while confidentiality must not be used to conceal danger or unlawful conduct.
• Duty of care: foreseeable risks to people, property, and the environment should be identified and controlled.
• Fairness: subcontractors and workers should not be pressured to accept unreasonable or unsafe conditions.
• Public interest: short-term project savings cannot justify foreseeable risks to future occupants or the public.

An ethical conflict may arise when a project is behind schedule and a manager suggests omitting a required inspection. The correct response is not to treat the inspection as optional merely because the programme is under pressure. The requirement should be reviewed, the risk assessed, and an authorised alternative inspection or recovery plan developed. Any departure must be approved by the competent authority and recorded transparently.

2.3 Speaking up and protected reporting

Organisations should provide several reporting routes, including supervisors, quality departments, safety representatives, confidential channels, and escalation to senior management or regulators where necessary. A reporting system is ineffective if workers reasonably believe that raising concerns will cause dismissal, reduced hours, victimisation, or exclusion from future work.

A professional should distinguish between a mistake, negligence, deliberate concealment, and fraud. Errors should normally trigger learning and correction; deliberate falsification or concealment may require disciplinary or legal action. The response should be proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent.

3. Governance of Quality

3.1 Meaning and structure of governance

Quality governance is the system by which an organisation directs and controls quality-related decisions. It includes policies, roles, approval limits, risk controls, audits, records, escalation procedures, and review mechanisms.

A practical governance structure often includes:

1. Policy level: organisational commitments to quality, safety, ethics, environmental protection, and compliance.
2. Project level: the project quality plan, inspection and test plans, design reviews, risk registers, and communication protocols.
3. Work-package level: method statements, work instructions, hold points, competency checks, and inspection records.
4. Assurance level: audits, independent reviews, surveillance, testing, and management review.
5. Improvement level: corrective action, lessons learned, trend analysis, and system revision.

Governance should be proportionate to risk. A minor cosmetic repair does not require the same approval structure as a structural alteration, fire-stopping installation, or lifting operation. However, simplification must not remove controls that are essential to life safety, durability, legal compliance, or environmental protection.

3.2 Three lines of control

A useful model is the three-lines approach:

The first line cannot transfer ownership of quality to the quality department. Inspectors verify and challenge, but those performing the work remain responsible for producing conforming work.

3.3 Transparency and traceability

Transparent reporting means that records present the actual condition of work, including uncertainty, defects, rejected tests, delayed inspections, and unresolved risks. Traceability means that a material, component, decision, or inspection can be linked to its source, location, date, responsible person, and approval status.

A robust record commonly identifies:

• project and work-package reference;
• drawing, specification, or requirement;
• material batch or component serial number;
• date, location, and environmental conditions where relevant;
• inspection or test method;
• result and acceptance criterion;
• person performing the work and person approving it;
• nonconformance and corrective action, if applicable; and
• revision status of the information used.

A record that merely states “checked and acceptable” may be insufficient where the risk is significant. Evidence should be appropriate to the decision.

4. Competence and Human Performance

4.1 Competence as a quality control

Competence includes knowledge, practical skill, judgement, relevant experience, and the ability to recognise limitations. A training attendance sheet does not by itself demonstrate competence. Competence should be verified through qualifications, supervised practice, observation, testing, work samples, or formal authorisation.

A competence management process should:

1. identify competence requirements for each safety- and quality-critical activity;
2. compare required competence with actual competence;
3. provide training, mentoring, or supervision;
4. assess performance; and
5. maintain current records and reauthorise personnel when requirements change.

Examples include welding, concrete testing, lifting operations, temporary works design, surveying, fire-stopping, electrical work, plant operation, and digital model coordination.

4.2 Human factors

Defects are often enabled by system conditions rather than caused by one careless individual. Fatigue, poor lighting, unclear drawings, excessive overtime, language barriers, inadequate tools, unrealistic production targets, and frequent design changes can all increase error probability.

Effective controls include clear work sequences, point-of-work risk assessment, visual standards, peer checks, adequate rest, suitable supervision, and designing tasks to make the correct action easier. Blaming an individual without examining the conditions may leave the underlying hazard unchanged.

5. Integrating Safety, Quality, Environment, and Sustainability

Safety and quality are mutually reinforcing. Poor quality can create immediate hazards, such as defective temporary works, inadequate fire stopping, or incorrect assembly of a structural component. Unsafe production conditions can also cause defects through rushed work, poor access, contamination, or uncontrolled changes.

An integrated control process should consider, for each activity:

• the required technical outcome;
• hazards to workers and the public;
• environmental aspects and impacts;
• legal and client requirements;
• competence and equipment needs;
• inspection and test points; and
• emergency and corrective-action arrangements.

5.1 Environmental and sustainability considerations

Quality includes fitness for intended use over the required life, not merely acceptance at handover. Sustainability-related quality considerations include material durability, repairability, resource efficiency, waste prevention, embodied carbon, water use, pollution prevention, and responsible sourcing.

Environmental claims must be supported by reliable evidence. For example, a claim that a material is recycled, low-carbon, or responsibly sourced should be linked to valid declarations, supplier information, chain-of-custody evidence, or an accepted assessment method. Unverified claims may constitute misleading environmental marketing.

A life-cycle perspective is important. A cheaper material may have higher replacement, maintenance, energy, or disposal impacts. Conversely, a more durable solution may reduce total environmental impact even if its initial cost is higher. Decisions should therefore identify the boundary, assumptions, time period, and evidence used.

5.2 Safety-quality integration in practice

An inspection and test plan should include safety-critical characteristics, not only dimensional or material checks. For example, a fire-door installation inspection may cover door rating, frame fixing, seals, clearances, hardware, labels, and evidence of competent installation. The same inspection protects life safety, legal compliance, and quality performance.

6. Data Governance and Decision-Making

6.1 Construction data as an asset and a risk

Construction projects generate drawings, models, inspection records, photographs, test results, sensor readings, personal data, commercial information, and approvals. Data governance ensures that information is accurate, available to authorised users, protected from unauthorised alteration, and retained for the required period.

Core data-governance principles include:

• Accuracy: data reflects the actual condition.
• Integrity: records are protected from unauthorised alteration.
• Availability: authorised people can access current information when needed.
• Confidentiality: sensitive information is disclosed only appropriately.
• Traceability: changes, authors, approvals, and versions can be identified.
• Retention: records are kept for legal, contractual, operational, and safety needs.
• Minimisation: only necessary personal or sensitive data is collected.

A photograph is not automatically reliable evidence. Its value depends on date, location, orientation, identifiable work, metadata controls, and linkage to the relevant inspection record. Digital signatures and access controls can strengthen evidence but do not replace professional judgement.

6.2 Information status and controlled change

A project should distinguish information statuses such as draft, for coordination, approved for construction, superseded, and as-built. Workers must be able to identify the current authorised information at the point of use. Uncontrolled copies are a common source of rework and nonconformance.

Changes should be evaluated for effects on design, safety, quality, cost, programme, environment, maintainability, and statutory compliance. The person approving a change should have suitable authority and competence.

6.3 Evidence-based decisions under uncertainty

A disciplined decision process can be expressed as follows:

1. Define the decision and the intended outcome.
2. Identify applicable requirements and affected parties.
3. Gather reliable evidence and identify missing information.
4. Identify feasible alternatives.
5. Assess risks, benefits, residual uncertainty, and reversibility.
6. Consult competent persons and affected stakeholders.
7. Authorise and document the decision.
8. Monitor the result and revise if evidence changes.

This process prevents a false choice between speed and quality. A rapid decision may be appropriate when delay creates greater danger, but it must still be controlled and recorded.

7. Modular Construction and Off-Site Quality

Modular construction transfers substantial work from the site to a factory. This may improve repeatability, controlled environmental conditions, productivity, and inspection access. It can also introduce new interface risks.

Important controls include:

• verifying factory quality systems and competence;
• agreeing inspection and test plans between factory and site teams;
• maintaining component identification and batch traceability;
• controlling design interfaces, tolerances, lifting points, and connection details;
• protecting modules during transport and storage;
• inspecting concealed work before closure;
• confirming that factory changes are communicated to site;
• checking installation sequence and temporary stability; and
• completing commissioning and handover records across both locations.

The quality boundary is not the factory gate. A module may conform when manufactured but be damaged in transport or incorrectly connected on site. Quality assurance must therefore cover the entire chain from design through manufacture, logistics, installation, commissioning, and operation.

8. Automation, Artificial Intelligence, and Future Practice

Automation may include robotic fabrication, machine-controlled equipment, automated surveying, digital twins, sensor networks, and algorithmic inspection. These tools can reduce repetitive work and improve consistency, but they also change failure modes.

Before using an automated system, the project should establish:

• its intended use and limitations;
• calibration and validation requirements;
• data sources and quality thresholds;
• human responsibilities for review and intervention;
• cybersecurity and access controls;
• treatment of system failure or loss of connectivity; and
• records needed to demonstrate reliable operation.

Artificial intelligence can assist with image classification, predictive maintenance, document review, schedule-risk analysis, and anomaly detection. It should not be treated as an autonomous authority for safety-critical approval unless the system has been suitably validated, its limits are known, and competent human oversight remains effective.

Potential AI risks include biased training data, false positives, false negatives, unexplained recommendations, privacy breaches, automated propagation of an incorrect design assumption, and excessive confidence in machine output. A professional remains accountable for a decision even when software supplied advice.

Future practice is likely to require stronger digital competence, information-management skills, cyber awareness, climate-resilience knowledge, and the ability to evaluate automated evidence. Traditional practical knowledge remains essential because physical construction conditions cannot always be represented fully in a model or dataset.

9. Regulatory Expectations and Professional Readiness

Regulatory requirements vary by jurisdiction, but their direction is broadly consistent: organisations are expected to demonstrate competence, control safety-critical work, maintain reliable records, manage design and construction interfaces, and provide information that supports safe operation and maintenance.

A project team should maintain a legal and other requirements register identifying:

• applicable legislation and regulations;
• permits and approvals;
• mandatory codes and standards;
• client and contractual requirements;
• competent-person obligations;
• inspection and notification duties; and
• record-retention requirements.

The register should have an owner, review date, evidence of evaluation, and a process for communicating changes. Compliance should be demonstrated through evidence rather than assumed because a procedure exists.

10. Applied Case: Modular Student Accommodation Project

Background

This illustrative case concerns a five-storey student accommodation project using factory-produced bathroom pods and wall modules. The project has a fixed opening date, and the contractor proposes reducing incoming inspection because the factory has supplied similar units successfully on earlier projects.

Problem

During installation, several pods show damaged waterproofing membranes and inconsistent service connections. The factory records indicate that the pods passed inspection, but the records do not consistently identify the batch or inspector. Site supervisors are pressured to accept the units to protect the programme. A subcontractor reports that a revised connection detail was used but cannot locate an approved drawing.

Analysis

The problem is not simply a defective membrane. It includes:

• weak traceability between factory records and installed units;
• an uncontrolled design change;
• inadequate transport and receiving controls;
• programme pressure affecting professional judgement;
• an interface between factory and site responsibilities; and
• a risk that concealed defects will become expensive or dangerous after occupation.

The absence of reliable records increases uncertainty. It would be inappropriate to assume that all units are acceptable because most appear satisfactory.

Approach and solution

The project manager establishes a controlled hold point before closure of affected walls. The team:

1. quarantines units with uncertain identity or visible damage;
2. retrieves the approved design and compares it with the installed detail;
3. carries out targeted inspections and tests based on risk;
4. engages the designer, factory, waterproofing specialist, and building-control representative;
5. repairs or replaces nonconforming work using an approved method;
6. creates a batch and location traceability register;
7. introduces a receiving inspection covering damage, connections, labels, and documentation;
8. requires formal approval for future design changes; and
9. records the programme impact openly and updates the risk register.

The contractor also reviews whether the factory’s inspection system is adequate and arranges an independent audit of the critical process. Workers are briefed on the revised connection detail, and competence is confirmed before further installation.

Outcome

The opening date is delayed by several days, but concealed failures are avoided. The client receives a complete record of affected units, repairs, test results, and approvals. The factory improves batch identification and transport protection. The project team adopts a common factory-site inspection plan for later projects.

Learning points

1. Factory production does not eliminate site quality responsibilities.
2. Traceability is essential when repeated components are manufactured in batches.
3. Programme pressure is a foreseeable ethical and governance risk.
4. A hold point is valuable only when people have authority to enforce it.
5. Transparent delay reporting can protect the client and public from greater future loss.
6. Lessons learned should change systems, not merely remind individuals to “be more careful.”

11. Practical Best-Practice Framework

A diploma-level practitioner can apply the following framework on a project:

Set expectations: communicate quality, safety, ethical, environmental, and reporting requirements during mobilisation.

Assign authority: identify who may inspect, approve, reject, stop, change, and escalate work.

Verify competence: match people and supervision to the risk and complexity of the task.

Control information: ensure that current drawings, specifications, methods, and records are available at the point of work.

Build quality in: use suitable materials, work sequencing, first-off inspections, mock-ups, and hold points.

Report truthfully: record defects, rejected tests, delays, uncertainty, and corrective actions.

Learn systematically: analyse recurring problems, identify root causes, and verify that actions work.

Protect the future: consider durability, maintainability, environmental effects, user safety, and the quality of handover information.

Challenges and Limitations

Quality leadership cannot remove all uncertainty. Construction involves changing conditions, incomplete information, multiple organisations, commercial pressures, and dependencies beyond one project team’s control. Governance may become bureaucratic if every activity receives excessive approval. Excessive metrics may encourage gaming, while poorly designed incentives may suppress reporting.

Digital tools also have limitations. A complete database can still contain inaccurate entries; a sophisticated model can represent an incorrect assumption; and automated detection can miss defects outside its training conditions. Professional judgement, field verification, and direct communication remain necessary.

Ethical decisions may involve competing legitimate interests. For example, a delay may protect future occupants but create financial hardship for workers or subcontractors. The appropriate response is not to hide the conflict but to identify the duties, risks, evidence, and affected parties, then make and document a defensible decision.

Chapter Summary

Quality is a leadership and governance outcome, not merely an inspection result. Effective leaders establish clear expectations, provide resources, encourage truthful reporting, and integrate quality with safety, environmental responsibility, and sustainability. Professional accountability requires alignment between responsibility, authority, competence, and evidence.

Ethical construction practice depends on honesty, impartiality, competence, duty of care, fairness, and protection of the public interest. Governance provides the structures for controlled decisions, traceability, audits, escalation, and continual improvement. Competence systems must verify practical ability and account for human factors such as fatigue, poor information, and production pressure.

Data governance protects the accuracy, integrity, availability, confidentiality, and traceability of project information. Modular construction and automation can improve consistency but create new interface, logistics, cybersecurity, competence, and validation risks. AI and digital tools should support—not replace—competent human judgement and accountability.

Future-ready practitioners combine technical knowledge with ethical judgement, communication, environmental awareness, digital competence, and willingness to challenge unsafe or nonconforming practice. The ultimate measure of quality is whether the completed asset performs safely, legally, sustainably, and reliably throughout its intended life.

Key Terms

Quality leadership: Direction and behaviour that establish conditions for consistent conformity and improvement.

Quality culture: Shared values and behaviours concerning quality within an organisation.

Professional accountability: Obligation to explain decisions and accept their consequences.

Responsibility: Duty to perform an assigned task.

Authority: Power to direct, approve, reject, or stop work.

Ethics: Principles governing morally responsible professional conduct.

Governance: Structures and processes used to direct and control an organisation or project.

Traceability: Ability to link work, materials, decisions, records, and approvals to their sources and locations.

Competence: Combination of knowledge, skill, experience, judgement, and appropriate behaviour.

Human factors: Conditions affecting human performance, including fatigue, workload, information, and environment.

Hold point: Mandatory stage at which work cannot proceed without authorised inspection or approval.

Nonconformance: Failure to meet a specified requirement.

Corrective action: Action taken to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformance.

Data governance: Management of data quality, security, access, integrity, retention, and use.

Modular construction: Construction using substantial prefabricated units manufactured away from the final site.

Automation: Use of controlled machines or software to perform tasks with reduced direct human operation.

Artificial intelligence: Computer-based methods that generate predictions, classifications, or recommendations from data.

Sustainability: Meeting present needs while protecting long-term environmental, social, and economic capacity.

Three lines of control: Model separating operational ownership, monitoring and guidance, and independent assurance.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Define quality leadership and state two behaviours that demonstrate it.
2. Distinguish responsibility, authority, and accountability.
3. Why is competence more than attendance at a training course?
4. Identify four principles of construction data governance.
5. State two quality risks associated with modular construction.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a positive quality culture can improve both safety and project performance.
2. Discuss the ethical responsibilities of a quality professional facing pressure to conceal a defect.
3. Describe a governance structure suitable for a medium-sized construction project.
4. Explain how environmental sustainability can be incorporated into quality planning and handover.
5. Evaluate the benefits and limitations of automation and artificial intelligence in construction quality control.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A supervisor discovers that a critical inspection was missed, but the work has already been covered. Develop an ethical and technically sound response, including reporting, investigation, and corrective action.
2. A modular project has repeated dimensional discrepancies between factory units and site openings. Analyse possible root causes and propose controls across design, manufacture, transport, and installation.
3. An AI image system classifies most installed safety barriers as compliant, but a worker reports several incorrect classifications. Decide whether the system should continue to be used and specify the validation, human-review, and governance controls required.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best describes quality leadership?

A. Completing all inspection forms before project close-out

B. Creating conditions in which people can consistently produce safe and conforming work

C. Transferring all quality responsibility to the inspection department

D. Increasing production speed regardless of defects

Correct Answer: B. Creating conditions in which people can consistently produce safe and conforming work

Question 2

What is the main distinction between accountability and responsibility?

A. Accountability concerns explaining decisions and accepting consequences, while responsibility concerns performing a duty

B. Accountability is only held by workers, while responsibility is only held by managers

C. Responsibility gives approval authority, while accountability gives technical competence

D. There is no practical distinction

Correct Answer: A. Accountability concerns explaining decisions and accepting consequences, while responsibility concerns performing a duty

Question 3

Which action best demonstrates transparent reporting?

A. Removing rejected test results from the project file

B. Recording only defects that affect the completion date

C. Reporting the defect, uncertainty, corrective action, and approval status

D. Waiting until handover to decide whether a defect is important

Correct Answer: C. Reporting the defect, uncertainty, corrective action, and approval status

Question 4

Why should competence be verified through practical assessment where appropriate?

A. Attendance records never have any value

B. A person may attend training without being able to perform the task safely and correctly

C. Practical assessment eliminates the need for supervision

D. It guarantees that no construction errors will occur

Correct Answer: B. A person may attend training without being able to perform the task safely and correctly

Question 5

Which data-governance principle protects records from unauthorised alteration?

A. Integrity

B. Availability

C. Minimisation

D. Convenience

Correct Answer: A. Integrity

Question 6

A factory-produced module passes factory inspection but is damaged during transport. What does this demonstrate?

A. Factory inspection makes site inspection unnecessary

B. Quality responsibility extends across the full supply and installation chain

C. Transport damage is only a commercial issue

D. Traceability is irrelevant after manufacture

Correct Answer: B. Quality responsibility extends across the full supply and installation chain

Question 7

What is the primary purpose of a hold point?

A. To increase paperwork on every activity

B. To prevent work proceeding past a critical stage without authorised review

C. To transfer responsibility from the contractor to the client

D. To replace all testing

Correct Answer: B. To prevent work proceeding past a critical stage without authorised review

Question 8

Which is an appropriate limitation of an AI inspection system?

A. It can never process images

B. Its output is automatically a legal approval

C. It may produce false positives or false negatives and requires suitable validation and human oversight

D. It removes the need for competent inspectors

Correct Answer: C. It may produce false positives or false negatives and requires suitable validation and human oversight

Question 9

In the three-lines model, who primarily owns and controls the work?

A. The first line, including operational and production teams

B. Only the external regulator

C. Only the independent auditor

D. The software supplier

Correct Answer: A. The first line, including operational and production teams

Question 10

Which response is most appropriate when a critical design change cannot be linked to an approved drawing?

A. Continue work because the change appears practical

B. Delete the old drawing and retain no history

C. Stop or control the affected work, verify the change, obtain authorised approval, and document it

D. Ask an unqualified worker to approve it verbally

Correct Answer: C. Stop or control the affected work, verify the change, obtain authorised approval, and document it