>Mr George "Quality" T.,
>
>What if Mr Lutz meant that too much Quality Assurance can be detremental? We would remain within your interpretation of the word Quality, and still I think there is something to be said for this statement, the distinction being between the enunciation of an otherwise perfectly sound concept and the implementation by us mere mortals (no relation with the framework implied).

The goal of what I've stated is to reduce the need for Quality Assurance, Claims and other costs associated with product defects. That's why phrases like, "Do it right the first time" and "Zero Defects" are used. The entire process involves employee education and feedback from them. They're the experts, they're the ones doing the job. In many cases, it can lead to process improvements which create fewer defects and lessen the need for back-end Quality Assurance. In turn, it reduces costs, since fixing a problem after it occurs is always more expensive than preventing it in the first place. Another byproduct of this is increased consumer satisfaction, as fewer and fewer mistakes ever reach the marketplace. In turn, this can lead to increased market share.

When I came to work for Shaw in 1986 (and it was in manufacturing) the quality iimprovement process was in its early stages. Shaw was the No. 3 (in terms of sales) carpet manufacturer in the world. We're now No. 1, and the division I work for generates more revenue than the entire company did 13 years ago. There was recently a survey which ranked contract carpet manufacturers (carpet that's used in offices, restaurants, etc.). That's the division I work for. There were five categories, which included value and quality. Shaw was easily ranked No. 1 in all five.

>Have you seen the revolutions that (mostly smaller sized) companies have had to go through to get the often much desired 9xxxx standard and recognition? And as happens often the strictly theoretical objectives become remote and actual personal politicking takes over resulting in chaos. Some companies do not make it throught the quality assurance revolution.

I assume you're referring to ISO 9000 certification. It's not a cheap process, by any means. However, Shaw was well on its way to that beforehand. You're right, however. It's not a cheap process by any stretch, and being Fortune 500 doesn't hurt.

>Does not mean it is not a desirable thing, but it must not become an objective in itself. The analogy with OO, three tier, COM, etc and other modish word come to mind.

I don't disagree. However, designing small, individual programs or object with a high degree of cohesion, in the long term, means less time spent in development and maintenance. Sort of "Do it right the first time"< g >.

>My 2 BEF,
>
>Marc
>
>PS:
>
>Your mood being it what it is, I hope you can see that it takes a lot of courage to not agree with you these days. But the occasions are rare so I thought I'd let you know anyway :):).
>
>Truly hope things will work out for you. But even in a bad mood you are an example of good manners.