Hi Marco,
It's been a long time...
>he will not answer. They never answer. The question "What is Quality?" has
>perhaps no sense for them. The FOLDOP (Free On Line Dictionary Of
Philosophy)
>reports:
>
><<Quality: The totality of features and characteristics of a product or
>service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Not to
>be mistaken for "degree of excellence" or "fitness for use" which meet only
>part of the definition>>.
>
>It is the well known definition of Quality from the ISO8402 norm, and it
>means that no *academic* philosopher gives a definition for Quality.
Not so fast, Marco. Philosophers have been giving definitions of Quality for
ages, and just because the FOLDOP gives a purely SOM answer (typical
division between object or subject) doesn't means all philosophers agree.
Struan, if I remember well our last discussion, implied that for scientists
and philosophers, the *reality* was in the relations between subject and
object (which IMHO doesn't solve much, but that's not the point), and I
believe that ever since Einstein came up with Relativity, he is right on
that account (yes Struan, you read that well : I agreed with you :).
I'll give you another definition, from a french dictionary (Le Petit Robert)
:
"Quality : phil. Way of being, perceptible and unmesureable aspect of things
(one of the fundamental categories of being). <<Scientific research begins
with perceptible quality [...] and ends up with quantity>> (Sartre)".
"Way of being", "perceptible", "unmesureable", "one of the fundamental
categories of being", this is far closer to the MOQ ! Even the Sartre quote
is pretty much in accordance with it. Of course, perceptible in french means
"by the senses", which says nothing about the quality of an idea. So it
might be understood as "objective qualities" rather than "primary
experience". But "way of being" also points at the moon of direct
apprehension. I'll check this one to see if Sartre had more to say about
quality.
>The above definition is not bad.... but on the other hand brings to the
>question: is Quality in the product/service (objective) or in the needs
>(subjective)? Not far from Malta, in Sicily, an Italian MOQer is leading a
>post graduate course for Quality Managers (ISO9000, ISO14000 and so on) at
>the Chemistry Department of the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche -
>National Research Council) and his program has the MOQ as first topic. He
>teaches that Quality creates both the needs and the products.... a point
that
>is NOT part of the ISO norms, but it is indeed very useful. Even for
Quality
>managers.
The FOLDOP definition is very much a pragmatic anglo-saxon approach to the
problems of Quality. I find typical this trivialisation of philosophy to the
needs of the market, and while I do understand the need for philosophy to
come out of the academe, I would rather have it in the individual way
popularized by RMP in ZAMM than by prostituting it to the marketplace.
>
>Please note also that, according to the above definition, Quality should
not
>be mistaken for "degree of excellence" that is the exact contrary of what
>Struan writes in his "non-answer".
>
>
>Ciao,
>Marco
>
>p.s.
>(by the way, the Foldop does not offer any definition for "Value")
Le Petit Robert - "Value : Quality estimated by a judgment." A pretty good
one, too. "Ling. Meaning (of a word) limited or defined by its apartenance
to a structure (associative field, context)." The typical structuralist
stance, which is OK as long as you don't try to make it into a philosophy.
Seeya
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST