The idea of QUALITY

[rhinocaster]

I've come across many posts over the years on the subject of "Quality" and I have to say that I'm still confused by the term.

We generally refer to items based on their quality. In a perfect world, the higher quality item would have a higher price. This certainly isn't the case in the world we live in. You can pay higher prices for a name, for an image, for desirability, for rarity, for hand work or for higher quality.

I can't say that on an operational level a Ferrari is of higher quality than a Toyota. A Ferrari may (and probably does) require more tuning and I would be surprised if they're more reliable than an economy level Toyota. However, when I think about "Quality" I'm certain that Ferrari is higher quality than Toyota. Why?

I must be figuring performance into the equation. Or tolerances. Or any of the other things I've mentioned. Or.....?

[toadman]

you should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". it spends a lot of pages defining "quality". great read

[getbent]

A good way to get a sense of it can be found in the book

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance If you've not read the book, I'll bet you will find it very good, interesting and fulfilling on this issue.

[getbent]

great minds toadman! great minds!

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by toadman

you should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". it spends a lot of pages defining "quality". great read

I did read it again last year. Great stuff. It didn't end my questions about the idea.

[getbent]

Originally Posted by rhinocaster

I've come across many posts over the years on the subject of "Quality" and I have to say that I'm still confused by the term.

We generally refer to items based on their quality. In a perfect world, the higher quality item would have a higher price. This certainly isn't the case in the world we live in. You can pay higher prices for a name, for an image, for desirability, for rarity, for hand work or for higher quality.

I can't say that on an operational level a Ferrari is of higher quality than a Toyota. A Ferrari may (and probably does) require more tuning and I would be surprised if they're more reliable than an economy level Toyota. However, when I think about "Quality" I'm certain that Ferrari is higher quality than Toyota. Why?

I must be figuring performance into the equation. Or tolerances. Or any of the other things I've mentioned. Or.....?

this will be fun! the toyota and the ferrari are attempting different things. So, the measure should not be of what they do but what problem they are solving for and the precision and completeness and efficiency in the manner in which they solve their problem.

True, they are both 'cars'. But, their goals as it relates to that experience are very different. A reductionist would simply say 'they are both methods of conveyance' but a reasonable person would quickly sniff that out and say "ahh, there are lists of goals that each vehicle is trying to achieve."

Thus, both can be of high quality and after establishing a measurement tool it is just as likely that the Toyota has a higher degree of quality than the ferrari.

As it relates to the 'classic god quality' if we are talking about 'car-ness' which you may be... I could see how someone could quickly conclude that the ferrari has a higher degree of car-ness... of course, I would not since my perception of the world has more egalitarian values for the concept of car-ness. if that makes any sense.

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by getbent

this will be fun! the toyota and the ferrari are attempting different things. So, the measure should not be of what they do but what problem they are solving for and the precision and completeness and efficiency in the manner in which they solve their problem.

True, they are both 'cars'. But, their goals as it relates to that experience are very different. A reductionist would simply say 'they are both methods of conveyance' but a reasonable person would quickly sniff that out and say "ahh, there are lists of goals that each vehicle is trying to achieve."

Thus, both can be of high quality.

So we can't relate to "Quality" in any kind of absolute sense? It's all relative to how they succeed at meeting their desired goals? Who defines the goal? The builder or the consumer?

[getbent]

The concepts in Pirsig's book are summed up (by me) this way: A) in the physical world quality is always less than perfect and is because it actually exists it is flawed. B) In the theoretical imagined concept things and ideas can be perfect.

When we try to speak, sing, write, explain what we think is of perfect quality... we have made it physical and, thus, flawed.

So, the quality of anything or idea is dependent upon the characteristics that the evaluator assigns to what quality would be.

Objective in the mind
Subjective in the world.


check this out.... in school a lot of math teachers used to laugh about the english teachers as being light and fluffy and dreamy... and as students a lot of us bought it.... then one day the light came on for me....

A poem is usually about something.... a rose is a rose is a rose. Roses exist. They are varied but you can touch one, smell one, grow one, clip one....

Anybody ever seen a straight line? Nope. A cube? nope. how about a ray? nope. Remember guys who'd try to take protractors to measure the angles in the textbook and the teacher would laugh at them and tell them not to try to figure stuff out from the drawings because they weren't accurate?

Algebra? how do you touch X?

It is all relative as it relates to 'goods' that people buy. I work for a manufacturer and we strive mightily to achieve design objectives that are really important to us to make things that WE think are great. We also have to consider the potential customer even though we mostly believe that if we make what WE believe is high quality the consumers will value it and buy it.

Some producers just make what they think the consumer will want.

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by getbent

The concepts in Pirsig's book are summed up (by me) this way: A) in the physical world quality is always less than perfect and is because it actually exists it is flawed. B) In the theoretical imagined concept things and ideas can be perfect.

When we try to speak, sing, write, explain what we think is of perfect quality... we have made it physical and, thus, flawed.

So, the quality of anything or idea is dependent upon the characteristics that the evaluator assigns to what quality would be.

Objective in the mind
Subjective in the world.


check this out.... in school a lot of math teachers used to laugh about the english teachers as being light and fluffy and dreamy... and as students a lot of us bought it.... then one day the light came on for me....

A poem is usually about something.... a rose is a rose is a rose. Roses exist. They are varied but you can touch one, smell one, grow one, clip one....

Anybody ever seen a straight line? Nope. A cube? nope. how about a ray? nope. Remember guys who'd try to take protractors to measure the angles in the textbook and the teacher would laugh at them and tell them not to try to figure stuff out from the drawings because they weren't accurate?

Algebra? how do you touch X?

It is all relative as it relates to 'goods' that people buy. I work for a manufacturer and we strive mightily to achieve design objectives that are really important to us to make things that WE think are great. We also have to consider the potential customer even though we mostly believe that if we make what WE believe is high quality the consumers will value it and buy it.

Some producers just make what they think the consumer will want.

I would limit myself to discussing the idea of quality in the physical world. I'm quite interested in feelings of perceived quality as it relates to the material items in our lives.

It sounds like we're all allowed to decide for ourselves the level of quality of an item based upon how it meets our needs. If that's the case, then anything, regardless of price or construction, can be considered "Of high quality."

Wouldn't this lead to a constant change of an products quality?

Let's say that I'm young and don't make a lot of money. Can I consider the Toyota of higher quality than the Ferrari because it meets my needs in a way that the Ferrari can't? Years later I make a lot of money and I can buy and afford to maintain a Ferrari. Its aesthetic appeals to me and suits my new social class. Now the Ferrari is of higher quality than the Toyota.

I have some trouble with that. It would make quality completely dependent upon perception. It there no inherent quality difference between two items other than perception?

[Nick JD]

Re: The Ferrari and the Toyota:

A F50 is designed to attain and maintain speeds of which a Corolla is not capable. Virtually every part needs to be much, much stronger and lighter to achieve this performance. Stronger and rarer materials are needed, better quality control is needed - and more often than not, more human intervention is needed. At the very least, the technology in a Ferrari is the culmination of years and years of trial and error (evolution) and survival of the fittest is expensive.

If Ferrari made a car equivalent to an average commuter Toyota, then it would be a similar price, but probably worse quality because Ferrari wouldn't be as good as Toyota at mass producing reliable cars.

Quality = Research + Experience + Care + Pride. It has nothing to do with price, but often reflects it because R + E + C + P demand better remuneration.

Don't even get me started on R-series BMW motorcycles...

[Ed P]

Another vote for "Zen and...". One of my favorite books of all time - I've still got my battered, taped together copy from June 1975. Not a month goes by that I don't refer to it or apply it's concepts in some part of my life.

Come to think of it, it's about time to read it again...

[Unseen]

Originally Posted by rhinocaster

I've come across many posts over the years on the subject of "Quality" and I have to say that I'm still confused by the term.

We generally refer to items based on their quality. In a perfect world, the higher quality item would have a higher price. This certainly isn't the case in the world we live in. You can pay higher prices for a name, for an image, for desirability, for rarity, for hand work or for higher quality.

I can't say that on an operational level a Ferrari is of higher quality than a Toyota. A Ferrari may (and probably does) require more tuning and I would be surprised if they're more reliable than an economy level Toyota. However, when I think about "Quality" I'm certain that Ferrari is higher quality than Toyota. Why?

I must be figuring performance into the equation. Or tolerances. Or any of the other things I've mentioned. Or.....?

According to most practical standards of quality, a Toyota is higher qualilty than a Ferarri. That doesn't prevent Ferarri from being faster, which is only better when speed is the standard. My understanding is that if you look closely at Ferarris (and other similarly go-fast limited production cars), you start noticing the sorts of flaws that would cause a Toyota to fail quality assurance.

[ibobunot]

To me quality means affordable to the average person and durable.

The Harley that I paid 2000.00 dollars for and rode for 10 trouble free years was high quality.....

Nowadays Harley's are overpriced recreational vehicles....

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by Unseen

According to most practical standards of quality, a Toyota is higher qualilty than a Ferarri. That doesn't prevent Ferarri from being faster, which is only better when speed is the standard. My understanding is that if you look closely at Ferarris (and other similarly go-fast limited production cars), you start noticing the sorts of flaws that would cause a Toyota to fail quality assurance.

This would be an example of perception. How it meets ones needs. For the rich, any reliability or maintenance issues are really non issues. They can afford repairs and have a stable of cars to choose from. This could make the Ferrari a very practical car for them. The fit and finish of the car (The things that allow it to do what the Toyota can't) would argue for higher quality than the Toyota.

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by ibobunot

To me quality means affordable to the average person and durable.

The Harley that I paid 2000.00 dollars for and rode for 10 trouble free years was high quality.....

Nowadays Harley's are overpriced recreational vehicles....

The average person where? On a global scale, that would make the least expensive car that lasts 10 years or so the highest quality.

You mention you perception of what makes something of quality. If it's all perception, wouldn't that eliminate any possibility of comparative quality? Harley is currently making some of the highest quality (From a performance and durability standpoint) in the companies history. It's no longer quality simply because it costs significantly more than it did years ago?

I understand what you're saying, but these are the areas where I always end up hitting a wall when I'm thinking about this stuff!

[sax4blues]

Another aspect of the Toyota/Ferarri comparison quality is consistency.

The Toyota is to McDonalds as the Ferarri is to gourmet cooking. You can get a perfect Big Mac every time anywhere around the world. Each gourmet dinner you get may be slightly different but would be considered higher quality than McDonalds.

[rhinocaster]

Originally Posted by sax4blues

Another aspect of the Toyota/Ferarri comparison quality is consistency.

The Toyota is to McDonalds as the Ferarri is to gourmet cooking. You can get a perfect Big Mac every time anywhere around the world. Each gourmet dinner you get may be slightly different but would be considered higher quality than McDonalds.

That's and interesting way of putting it! I'm going to have to kick that one around for a while. Thanks!

[Nick JD]

If it breaks a lot or doesn't perform well while doing the job it was made to do, it's bad quality. If it doesn't break a lot and is satisfying to use, it's good quality.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was, contrary to its author's metaphysical dilemma, a good quality book.

[Telelicious]

Cars are actually a good measuring stick to hold up as an example for this discussion since in the genre' of automotives there are MANY levels of quality for MANY reasons.
Has anyone here actually ridden in and or took a close look at an older Rolls Royce? Complete junk from a fit and finish standpoint. Hand made and look like it. Look like they were put together with spare parts.

How bout' a Jaguar? Jag and Ferrari had the same problems for a long time. brittle copper wire.
Hows the digg go? " Lucas is the reason theres warm beer in the UK"

Mercedes of the 70'-80's were so far beyond any others it was amazing.
They were the yardstick of quality.

Lexus came along in the 90's and upped the ante'

Longetivity wise you cant beat a Honda or Toyota, Fit and finish - Mercedes, Lexus, Speed & H.P. Ferrari.....etc,etc.

All different yardsticks of quality

Speaking of Ferrari. Anybody seen that old early 60's movie "turning a new leaf" With Walter Mathaeu?
He's a rich guy that lives in Manhattan and drives a Ferrari.

Every time he goes anywhere, they show him leaving with his scarf and driving gloves and when he arrives its on the hook of a tow truck.

I love that movie.

[Dan German]

Originally Posted by rhinocaster

I have some trouble with that. It would make quality completely dependent upon perception. It there no inherent quality difference between two items other than perception?

I am by habit a linear thinker, yet now I find myself in the light fluffy and dreamy world of theatre. I would have to say that quality is dependent upon perception, but also intent. Quality is simply the extent to which a thing achieves its goals. If by the end of your production of O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night the audience is rolling with laughter, it's a safe bet that it was not a high quality performance. If your Ferrari gets 45 mpg but rolls in the corners and won't go over 100 mph, it's not a quality Ferrari. Conversely, if you buy a Toyota Corolla and it has no luggage space, seats only two, and requires expensive service every 90 days, well, you get the picture........

[T-bone Tone]

This comparison of the Ferrari and Toyota has nothing to do with quality. At all. Those who have read Pirsig's other book, Lila, dealing with the metaphysics of quality - www.moq.com - will recall that it is perfectly feasible for the Toyota to be of a higher quality than the Ferrari. Quality is not a constant at all.

What is important, is for a thing to have quality for you. As Pirsig says, Quality is a noun.

[rhinocaster]

It looks like most of the opinions on quality here are defined by, or at least driven by, an interpretation of the idea laid out by Pirs