Introduction
All of us involved in systems development would like to think that we are contributing to a quality product; all of us who commission and/or specify what the systems are to do require quality, either assuming that quality will be a given or specifically stating that quality is a goal.
For many years most of us have had our own ideas of what quality is and immediately 'know' what quality means in any given context. However, during a discussion about the fundamental variables in any project, it became clear to me that the definition of quality cannot be assumed or taken for granted and that, unless all parties to a discussion about quality are using the same 'definition', misunderstandings and later confusion will inevitability happen.
This article sets out some of the problems in the area of quality that people need to be aware of and proposes a possible solution.
Project Fundamental Variables
An understanding of project fundamental variables is useful when deciding the what, how long and how much that the project should have i.e. if we fix one or more of the variables, what will be the impact on the rest. The number of project fundamental variables is generally accepted to be 3, but there is disagreement about what these 3 are! Below are some of the commonly used 'quality triangles' and possible problems:
The are 2 possible problems with this view:
a. Cost is made up of materials and resource time; thus Time is a factor in 2 of the variables and so complicates the concepts unnecessarily.
b. The concept of 'quality' (which, after all is what this article is about).
So if we ignore the material costs we get:
Now we just have to address the quality issue. Some say that quality is 'everything' i.e. functional requirements, non-functional requirements, look and feel, value for money, 'don't care as long as it is pink!' this is the issue that sparked the debate.
In addition, it is usual that time and resource are limited in systems development, so if we fix time and resource (as in Agile development) then we are left with varying the quality - to many business people this is anathema because their definition of quality is different from that understood by systems developers.
Quality Definitions
So, what is quality? There are dictionary definitions that I will deal with further on but for now let me pose some questions and propose the probable answers:
Q. Which is the better quality car - a Rolls Royce or a Ford Mondeo?
A. Most people would probably answer a Rolls Royce.
A. A bit trickier but, again, most would answer Rolls Royce.
Q. Which is a better quality bag - a leather briefcase or a supermarket plastic carrier?
A. Some people, by instinct, may say the answer is the briefcase but I have found that most people will ask 'depends on what you use it for'.
Q. Which is the better quality word processor - Microsoft Word or Lotus (IBM) Amipro?
A. The general answer will depend on which one the interviewee uses!
Dictionary Definitions
Below are just three sets of definitions from different dictionaries:
Merriam-Webster
a. peculiar and essential character: NATURE <her ethereal quality -- Gay Talese>
b. an inherent feature: PROPERTY <had a quality of stridence, dissonance -- Roald Dahl>
c. CAPACITY, ROLE <in the quality of reader and companion -- Joseph Conrad>
d. degree of excellence: GRADE <the quality of competing air service -- Current Biography>
e. superiority in kind <merchandise of quality>
f. social status: RANK /ARISTOCRACY
g. a distinguishing attribute: CHARACTERISTIC <possesses many fine qualities>
h. archaic: an acquired skill: ACCOMPLISHMENT
i. the character in a logical proposition of being affirmative or negative
j. vividness of hue
k. TIMBRE: the identifying character of a vowel sound determined chiefly by the resonance of the vocal chambers in uttering it
l. the attribute of an elementary sensation that makes it fundamentally unlike any other sensation
We can see from this set of definitions that the meaning of quality is probably dependant on the context in which it is being used, ranging from an objective meaning (‘the character in a logical proposition of being affirmative or negative’) to one that has a very subjective meaning (‘the attribute of an elementary sensation that makes it fundamentally unlike any other sensation’), through a meaning that implies some sort of quality scale (‘GRADE <the quality of competing air service’).
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
noun
1 [C or U] how good or bad something is: a shop advertising top quality electrical goods; The food was of such poor/low quality; Their products are of very high quality; I only buy good-quality wine; The quality of the picture on our television isn't very good.
2 [U] a high standard: He's not interested in quality. All he cares about is making money.
adjective [before noun]
of a high standard: This is a quality product.
MAINLY UK The story received little coverage in the quality papers (= more serious newspapers).
Again, this version of the Cambridge implies that quality is a scale and that the individual points on that scale are context driven; there is a sort of implied subjective nature in the ‘He's not interested in quality’ statement because ‘his’ definition of quality in the context may not be the same as the person stating this – we just do not know.
Your Dictionary.com
- a. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property. b. A personal trait, especially a character trait: "The most vital quality a soldier can possess is self-confidence" (George S. Patton).
- Essential character; nature: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd" (Shakespeare).
- a. Superiority of kind: an intellect of unquestioned quality. b. Degree or grade of excellence: yard goods of low quality.
- a. High social position. b. Those in a high social position.
- Music Timbre, as determined by harmonics: a voice with a distinctive metallic quality.
- Linguistics The character of a vowel sound determined by the size and shape of the oral cavity and the amount of resonance with which the sound is produced.
- Logic The positive or negative character of a proposition.
These definitions are very similar to those from the Merriam-Webster above and attract the same comments.
Free On-Line Dictionary Of Computing
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 also interesting that ‘fitness for use’ is only a part of the definition; an example of this is applying the definition to our Rolls Royce/Ford Mondeo question above – if the purpose of a car is solely to get from A to B, then the quality of both is equal. However, there are probably other requirements such as the ability to park it outside the house; in most cases, the Ford Mondeo would fulfil this requirement but the Rolls Royce would not, leading to the conclusion (in some peoples’ minds) that the Ford is a better quality car than the Rolls Royce! The needs (requirements) must be fully stated before a quality statement about any solution can be made.
The Quality Problem
Therefore, we have seen that the general concept of quality is not straightforward and arguably not fundamental; there are both objective and subjective definitions depending on context.
It would seem to make sense to use the Free Online Dictionary of Computing quality definition (because we are interested in systems development) but that then poses the question ‘Are the parties to specifying/negotiating the quality all using the same definition of quality?’
I suppose this definition could be put into some corporate standards that everybody is aware of and uses, but in practice, this has failed so many times in other areas that it is very unlikely to work for a quality definition.
The Quality Solution
Rather than trying to find a single, accepted and understood definition of quality in an organisation, I propose that the word not be used at all but the term ‘Requirements’ be substituted.
It could be considered that requirements are not fundamental given that they are made up of functional and non-functional and can be further sub-divided into categories such as business, legal, security etc. However, whatever requirements hierarchy is chosen, the ‘Requirements’ do form ‘The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’ and so gives us an objective list to agree on, prioritise and develop from – misunderstanding and confusion would be cut to a minimum.
If this solution were to be adopted, the ‘Quality Triangle’ would now become:
This triangle now fits the management concepts of all projects in that if the requirements are fixed, time and/or resource must be varied to meet the requirements (but throwing resource at an overrunning project does not necessarily fix the problem).
If time is fixed, we can vary the number of resources and/or prioritise the requirements to finish on time (but note the same caveat on resource as above).
Similarly, if we fix resource we can vary the time it will take and/or prioritise the requirements.
However, it is found in practice that ‘juggling’ 2 variables as a project manager is very difficult; therefore, an attempt is always made to fix 2 of the variables and vary the third.
With Agile, development time is fixed by a specific business need and resource is fixed around the available budget. This then requires that the stated requirements should be prioritised so that what is eventually delivered in the given time for the given cost at least fulfil the minimum usable subset of the requirements.
Conclusion
The generally accepted ‘Quality Triangle’ of fundamental variables in any project has 2 flaws in that Cost has an element of time which is also one of the other fundamental variables and that the concept of quality is not universally understood by all project stakeholders.
The first flaw can be overcome in a limited way by replacing Cost with Resource but the second flaw is more difficult to overcome.
Dictionary definitions of quality do not produce a consistent and objective view of quality that can be used by all stakeholders to prevent misunderstandings and confusion.
One option is that the term ‘Quality’ be replaced in the ‘Quality Triangle’ by the term ‘Requirements’. This change would reflect the reality of project management whereby what is delivered, in what time and by who are in fact the variables that are always considered.