- Joined
- May 13, 2015
- Messages
- 841
Hi! I think like this: the quality of one thing is the degree to which this meets a specific set of requirements. The quality of one thing can be determined by comparing its inherent characteristics against a set of requirements. If these intrinsic characteristics meet all the requirements against which we evaluate, we can say that the thing has a good or excellent quality. Conversely, if its intrinsic characteristics do not meet the requirements against which we measure, we say that the quality is low or poor. Quality, therefore, is a matter of degrees and a relative concept. It depends from the set of reference requirements which we choose to evaluate against and from the evaluator. And yes, transcendent is also a dimension of quality valued by many (e.g.: this thing gives me a piece of mind, this product just makes me feel good) 
.
But if it was just so, quality would be something exclusively subjective, no chance to objectifying it and would be relegated to the plane of opinions, tastes, preferences. It would never assume a "scientific" value, value that actually it owns. Its true that the level of satisfaction can be subjective and also subjective can be some requirements against which we measure it. But other requirements can be extremely objective, so is their assessment. We call some of these objective requirements, for example, product specifications and standards. One cannot improve what cannot be measured.
One simple principle of the objective quality evaluation for me is the fit for use concept. Which is the intended use of this thing? What performances I want/need to get from this? Here its possible to be very objective. Speaking of knives, measurable values can be assigned for e.g.: edge holding (CATRA), steel toughness, lock strength, etc. Here it makes a lot of sense to compare similar products against a set of specific objective requirements, and see how they behave. Thats what many consumer groups and test laboratories do all day. What detergent washes better at 40 degrees in washing-machines? Which TV model consumes less in an hour? Which computer has the fastest processor? Which set of garden furniture is more resistant to weathering and aging? When the set of requirements I test my thing against are objectified (basically a numerical value is assigned), the comparison between things becomes "scientific. By comparing my thing against a set of objective requirements that it shall meet, I can, in effect, say one thing is better or worse than another one .
Another principle I recognize is the value for money, which measure the relationship between quality/price. Yes, they have a relationship
! Lets say two things have a very similar or equal degree of satisfaction for the same set of requirements. One thing cost 100 and the other costs 10. The second thing is ten times better in terms of value for money, it can satisfy the same set of objective requirements for one tenth of the cost.
A different ball game, in my opinion, is the perceived quality. When in the sphere of objective quality, it would be relatively easy for me to be guided into a purchase. Objectifying the set of requirements against which to assess things and adding to the result the figure for the cost, hardly I would make mistakes. The problem (or opportunity it depends !) it arises when one begins to introduce among the requirements to be met subjective elements, for which one cannot define an objective numerical value. For example, the aesthetics (beautiful for me, ugly for you, insignificant to him), the prestige arising from the possession (status symbol), the feeling of accomplishment, the confidence in the brand, the appreciation of workmanship and skills, the brand public image and their values, the maker history, the personal experience of the customer with other products of the same brand, the opinion leaders, experts and consumer groups, the advertising, etc.
This introduction of subjective requirements in the set of requirements against which to judge the thing, is added to the already subjective classification and the relativity (somehow built-in) in quality (e.g.: for an equal degree of satisfaction, a single requirement can weight more or less on the total judgment from different evaluators). The introduction of non-objective requirements to be met, zeroes any possibility of objectivity in the evaluation of two similar objects. Here we leave the realm of objective quality and we enter in the kingdom of the perceived quality. The perceived quality can have little or nothing to do with the actual characteristics of the thing that we are evaluating
. This happens because we now assess against not-objective requirements and we know, judgments, opinions, feelings, experiences, trends, ambitions, opinions, personal values, etc., are subjective and they vary a lot from individual to individual. We also exit the rational sphere to get into the emotional one. Which is also fine and sometimes even more rewarding . Take care.
.But if it was just so, quality would be something exclusively subjective, no chance to objectifying it and would be relegated to the plane of opinions, tastes, preferences. It would never assume a "scientific" value, value that actually it owns. Its true that the level of satisfaction can be subjective and also subjective can be some requirements against which we measure it. But other requirements can be extremely objective, so is their assessment. We call some of these objective requirements, for example, product specifications and standards. One cannot improve what cannot be measured
.One simple principle of the objective quality evaluation for me is the fit for use concept. Which is the intended use of this thing? What performances I want/need to get from this? Here its possible to be very objective. Speaking of knives, measurable values can be assigned for e.g.: edge holding (CATRA), steel toughness, lock strength, etc. Here it makes a lot of sense to compare similar products against a set of specific objective requirements, and see how they behave. Thats what many consumer groups and test laboratories do all day. What detergent washes better at 40 degrees in washing-machines? Which TV model consumes less in an hour? Which computer has the fastest processor? Which set of garden furniture is more resistant to weathering and aging? When the set of requirements I test my thing against are objectified (basically a numerical value is assigned), the comparison between things becomes "scientific. By comparing my thing against a set of objective requirements that it shall meet, I can, in effect, say one thing is better or worse than another one
. Another principle I recognize is the value for money, which measure the relationship between quality/price. Yes, they have a relationship
! Lets say two things have a very similar or equal degree of satisfaction for the same set of requirements. One thing cost 100 and the other costs 10. The second thing is ten times better in terms of value for money, it can satisfy the same set of objective requirements for one tenth of the cost. A different ball game, in my opinion, is the perceived quality. When in the sphere of objective quality, it would be relatively easy for me to be guided into a purchase. Objectifying the set of requirements against which to assess things and adding to the result the figure for the cost, hardly I would make mistakes. The problem (or opportunity it depends
!) it arises when one begins to introduce among the requirements to be met subjective elements, for which one cannot define an objective numerical value. For example, the aesthetics (beautiful for me, ugly for you, insignificant to him), the prestige arising from the possession (status symbol), the feeling of accomplishment, the confidence in the brand, the appreciation of workmanship and skills, the brand public image and their values, the maker history, the personal experience of the customer with other products of the same brand, the opinion leaders, experts and consumer groups, the advertising, etc.This introduction of subjective requirements in the set of requirements against which to judge the thing, is added to the already subjective classification and the relativity (somehow built-in) in quality (e.g.: for an equal degree of satisfaction, a single requirement can weight more or less on the total judgment from different evaluators). The introduction of non-objective requirements to be met, zeroes any possibility of objectivity in the evaluation of two similar objects. Here we leave the realm of objective quality and we enter in the kingdom of the perceived quality. The perceived quality can have little or nothing to do with the actual characteristics of the thing that we are evaluating
. This happens because we now assess against not-objective requirements and we know, judgments, opinions, feelings, experiences, trends, ambitions, opinions, personal values, etc., are subjective and they vary a lot from individual to individual. We also exit the rational sphere to get into the emotional one. Which is also fine and sometimes even more rewarding . Take care.
