[M.D. Holloway]

Taz - great insights!

As for the hamburger analogy, I have had excellent burgers (Louies in New Haven to think of one) and really bad ones as well (White Castle). I can't find many chain Louies and I haven't eaten enough to know how consistantly tasty they are. Fastfood has a certain level of expectation and that level of expectation is the criteria. If you were to try to measure the criteria and compare then a 'specification' would have to extablished. Laugh now but you already have specifications in place for fastfood you just don't relize it. If you do go to them (and I suspect you may from time to time - but I could be wrong) then your level of acceptability is such that the place has to be clean, safe, well known and inexpensive. That is a specification that even has quantifible values - they are a bit subjective but actually companies like Brinker Int and Yum Inc have a great understanding of what people will tolerate and what they won't right down to the amount of napkins or parking places available.

Warrentees affecting quality? Excellent point! I would argue that warrentee and other value added contribuations should be included in quality and performance criteria. The challenge with your premise is that when your item breaks it is covered without any direct expense to the owner but there is the indirect cost pools to think about. My Lambo breaks down and I get a free tow and fix but if it is doing it every other week then its starts to cut into my sports agency business - thats money outa my pocket unless Lambo was to re-coop my loss.

As for quality being subjective, don't tell that to RedBeard, he is a practitioner of the Black Art of Sick Sigma (as was I many a moon ago!).

Great discussion though - really making me think this through for nothing else then to keep the blood to the brain flowing!