DIYbanter - View Single Post

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article , lid
says...

On 3/25/2012 1:22 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:24:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:53:21 -0400, Ed wrote:
Let's define quality. It is a product that works and will last for
the time it is designed to.

That's a **** poor definition of quality in my opinion Ed. To me
"quality" is a concept that sets something above its competitors.
Whether that means something that lasts longer, looks better or
operates better than a competitor, it certainly does *not* mean that
it's just "Ok".

That goes back to my original definition of ISO. It assures a
consistent product. It does not assure a quality product as you
described above.

You either meet the standards set or you don't.

ISO does not set anything apart from it competitors, make it last
longer or operate better. Therefore, it is not a quality system, nor
does it assure a "quality" product.

Then how come part of following the ISO process requires the keeping of
"quality records"? It IS a "quality system" in that it is designed to ensure
*consistent* quality, to whatever degree YOU define the term "quality".

I think that Dave and Ed are using the term "quality" to mean "high-
quality" and totally ignoring the notion of "low quality".

Does a Rolls have no quality because a Ferrari can beat it on a
racetrack? Does the P-51 have no quality because an F-22 can fly rings
around it backwards?