Where Outcomes Meet Expectations

Robert Pirsig, in his own twisted way (Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) had it right - quality is the origin of the relationship between subject & object. Of course, he was nuts at the time, but the sentiment wasn't. Quality is a judgement, an impression, a feeling, a moment. You can't define it, but everyone knows what it is. It's an enigma.

That can never be an excuse for not dealing with it.

Practically, we all 'get' quality - we look at the result & give it a thumbs up or down dependent upon our own perception - how we form our relationship with the product. Just because you can't quantify it easily, can't replicate the perception, & can't audit or reproduce the actual quality essence does not invalidate the experience of quality, because the chances are that most people will experience it in the same 'way' (direction, not necessarily distance).

When you ask anyone "is this quality output", you will almost always get the same response from an homogeneous audience. This is important - homogeneity across professionalism, or professionals (not necessarily the same thing) should produce similar perceptions. Quality is not taste. It might be subjective, but it has indefinable (unquantifiable) absolutes.

Therein lies the reproducibility.

That which is poor quality to one person will always be poor quality to their peers.

That's where the outcome doesn't meet the expectations.

That's where the subject meets the object & turns up its nose.

That kind of judgement call is obvious, cannot be fudged or faked (if we are honest with ourselves), & is meaningful.

It does, however, need an awareness of the moment, the ability to perceive it, & the desire to understand the outcomes & the expectations.

Without that, there can be no quality.