6 ms·
I have a book on quality (I forget the title) that pointed out the fact that while everyone talks about quality, it is rarely defined. The book went on to defin
by kuwze 9y ago
I have a book on quality (I forget the title) that pointed out the fact that while everyone talks about quality, it is rarely defined. The book went on to define quality thusly: "Quality is the ability to meet a specification" (that's my rephrasing as I can't find the book).
- atom058 9y agoVery close to the classic definition by Joseph Juran, where quality is the ability to meet and exceed customer expectations
- DonbunEf7 9y agoI have a book that is along these same lines, and it says, "Quality is what you like." Quality is between an observer and an object.
- troymc 9y agoAs I noted in another comment, that's _not_ the conclusion of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. In fact, it's one he ruled out.
- eqmvii 9y agoDefining quality is easy enough that I always had a hard time fully buying into Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
- Tomminn 9y agoI think the definition implicitly described in that book is "Quality is the ability to satisfy the innately messy human value function". Which I think is a pretty okay definition. Though it's a better definition for beauty.
- abritinthebay 9y agoIf it's that easy - please provide a definition? Because quality is often subjective, I'll be shocked if you can provide a generalized definition.
- khedoros1 9y agoPerception of quality is subjective. An objective measurement of quality would be how well something fits a set of requirements. Something fitting that definition of "quality" could still be perceived as low-quality, of course, but I think that's a different question.
- troymc 9y agoThat's _not_ what the book concluded. One of Phaedrus' realizations was that quality is neither subjective (depending on the judge) nor objective (an objective fact, like the mass of a book in kilograms).
- khedoros1 9y agoI never said that it was. I've never read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The previous comment asked for a definition of quality. I provided one that made sense to me. > One of Phaedrus' realizations was that quality is neither subjective (depending on the judge) nor objective (an objective fact, like the mass of a book in kilograms). Sounds like a contradiction in terms, like a binary value that's neither true nor false. Unless the conclusion was that quality is a composite of some objective properties and some subjective ones.
- abritinthebay 9y agoThat would be a subjective definition not an objective one. How “well” something fits is absolutely subjective. It’s a judgement call with no objective measure.
- khedoros1 9y agoI think that you read my comment in a way that I didn't intend. "How well" would probably be better phrased as "whether", because "how well" implies a non-binary state. I was picturing a requirements list of numerical ranges, which a specific unit of a product must satisfy. "How well" is what came to mind when I pictured a unit that nearly exceeded the limits of its requirements, compared to a unit that sat perfectly in the middle of the range of every requirement. I never pictured any kind of "judgement call", and I'd hoped that would be clear, in the context that I'd set, talking about objective measurements of quality.
- zachrose 9y agoIt's been a while since I read it, but my takeaway was that there's a kind of tension or dilemma between classical quality and subjective quality. The example from early on is about how Pirsig sees a beer can as a perfect shim for motorcycle handlebars because it meets the specifications of what's needed for the job (classical quality) while his friend isn't sure because it doesn't feel right to put a beer can into a BMW motorcycle (subjective quality). The book's resolution of this dilemma is kind of hazy to me (something about cleaving a marble in half while reaching the top of a mountain?) but I think it's about how these are individually insufficient ways to define quality and you need both. I suppose the software version of this is like: passing tests don't imply that anybody is going to want the thing you've made.
- Retric 9y agoQuality is the degree to which something exceeds minimum specifications. You can sit on a low quality chair etc. You can enjoy a low quality meal. A low quality car still moves you from A to B. It's all the extras that make a better version of the same product that's missing.
- caminante 9y agoExceeding minimum specifications doesn't necessarily improve quality. I argue that extras typically make things worse. I think you're seeking "fit for use" = quality, instead. This is closer to the parent comment.
- Dylan16807 9y agoIf an extra makes things worse, then it's not exceeding. It's a novel way of underperforming.
- caminante 9y agoI think you're conflating terms. Exceeding minimum specification != exceeding minimum expectation. Adding extra things is necessarily exceeding specifications.
- Retric 9y agoBeing say lighter or heavier is not inherently an improvement. So, change in mass can only exceed specifications if is is an improvement.
- caminante 9y agoNo, "improvement" is still subjective. If the spec calls for a car, and I give you a car with a roof-rack, then I've exceeded the specification for what the car must do. Whether that's an improvement is subjective. If you don't need the rack, then your MPG suffers.
- 9y ago
- walshemj 9y agoI think that's the formal production engineering definition -the trouble comes when you apply it to the messy world of software. Its easy for Tesla to say ok if we spend X Million on this machine tool which can work to 10 Thou rather than 20 Thou it will reduce our wastage rate for widget Z by Y% there for the payback period is so many months - classic production engineering 101.
- geomark 9y agoI once worked at a big electronics company at the time when TQM (Total Quality Management) was the buzzword. Senior management was on the band wagon and regularly kept dropping TQM initiatives that distracted us from doing our jobs. Once they sent around a survey that asked us to define "Quality". While most of us tried to avoid completing the survey, one of my coworkers took the time to carefully answer that question. He said that "Quality is doing such a good job that nobody will ever again ask you to define what quality means."
- tomelders 9y agoGrr. I’m sick and tired of rubbish specifications, poorly defined acceptance criteria, and the code that meets it. If you put shit in, you’re going to get shit out. Quality is what seperates the shit from the good. If no one on your team knows what quality looks like, or worse, they like the smell of shit, you’re getting shit, and everyone is going to pat themselves on the back like it’s a job well done. Quality isn’t conceptually hard. It’s the result of thoughtfulness, care, and dilligence. Three seemingly unwelcome qualities in a lot in software development settings. Any attempt to codify what quality is beyond that will dimish the significance of those pre-requisits and embolden those that don’t possess them. Quality is also the first thing you sacrifice when you offshore your development, and that’s something no ones wants to talk about. That’s not to say offshore teams are incapable of achieving quality. It’s to say that the rules of offshoring incentivise against quality and guarantee that your flawed specifications and requirements will be met with brutal efficiency and go unquestioned.
- PeachPlum 9y agoQuality is qualitative
- amriksohata 9y ago@tomelders, my thoughts exactly, poor requirements and just having something "to show", rather than actual value