The definition I found worked best for "quality" was "fit for purpose" (this came from the APM PRINCE2 recommendation).
Does the item meet the required quality standards?
then reads
Is the item fit for purpose?
A £20,000 chair is fit for purpose, therefore has the required quality, but does not necessarily represent best value.
A £2 chair might be fit for purpose (which must include durability) and therefore might represent excellent value.
The trouble is that journalists have thrown quality together to mean lots of things. I find the nonsense of "quality is poor as it lacks soft touch dashboard materials" particularly galling. Hard plastics are aesthetics, not the level of "fitness for purpose" (quality).
|