Re: On the entire "Quality Cost" Debate

[Roger Key <roger.key@onet.co.uk>]

In responce to my post Myron Asked:

>At 9:28 AM +0100 9/4/00, Roger Key wrote:
>>
>>Maybe it is just me and I just don't get it-
>>
>What do you want?

I think Dan may have summes some of it up in his post, quality being what
ever you want it to be and thus we get interesting discussions about the
quality of something - features that work and meet our need and Quality
-the thing that helps us create reality - from Pirsig.  My use of quality
and Quality  als come from Pirsig.  To some extent i guess that is what I
want.  A lot of the quality arguments are about reducing variation.  I have
argued in the past and will argue again that this is to do with
SPECIFICATION and FEATURES.  Maybe when you manufacture (for example)
something where there is little variation in one of the features - output
spindle run out for example - then you are meeting the specification with a
higher degree of quality.  However when this output spindle is going on the
motor of a cruise missile then maybe the Quality is not so hot.  So I guess
at the end of the day, what I do not get is.
A) What quality is
b) What Quality is
and
C) Why you should seek to improve quality if in turn this makes the Quality
worse!

I know "it" is right, I just do not know what "it" is yet!

---------------------------------oooOOOooo--------------------------------------
Roger C. Key 				 mailto:roger.key@onet.co.uk
Prescient - The Whole as One
(44) 01639 871062
Web based training for Organisations,	 http://virtual-deming.com
Leadership and Life!
=====================================================================