[M.D. Holloway]

Perhaps it is just semantics, but this is one line of reasoning that has always bugged me. I believe there is a difference between high quality and high performance and maybe it could be said that there is a difference between quality and performance in general. I define quality as a product or service that is consistent at providing an expected level of performance. I define performance as a product or service that meets a certain level or physical specification to achieve a work-end. High performance is defined as a product or service that exceeds the status quo and the expected level of work by all measures of a given criteria.

Let us take Honda – high quality cars. They are reliable and provide a level of consistency but they would not be considered high performance. I guess with that line of reasoning one would consider McDonalds to be a quality restaurant. You can go to a McDonalds in any part of the country and the Big Mac would taste the same. The layout would be consistent and the playground would even look the same. To the typical adult McDonalds is not ‘quality’ food but to a 7 year old or somebody that is starving then Mickey Ds looks like a Morton’s or a Ruth’s Chris. You always get what you expect to get = high quality.

Let us take Ferrari – high performance cars. Not many cars on the road can keep up with their handling or speed. Do Ferrari’s perform consistently at that level of high performance? I do not think so (but I will stand corrected). I suspect that they require constant maintenance in order to achieve that level of performance. Therefore, they cannot be considered high quality. Ferrari’s handle and excel and even brake and slalom better then most all cars on the road = high performance.


So, am I missing the point here?