293
Systems Integration Management
limits (which are further away from the target value). See Appendix 2 for a
derivation of the loss function that describes the quality based on a variance
from a target value of performance. Choosing a loss function depends on
whether the use is for making predictions, making estimations, estimating
risk, defining optimal testing procedures, or making sense of optimizations
(Hennig and Kutlukaya 2007).
Quality
Quality can be thought of in any number of ways, all leading to the notion of
great importance to the users of products and services, but defined inconsistently (Reeves and Bednar 1994). Here we distinguish quality in the narrow
sense of only that which is measurable through an association with a function.* The interpretation that follows concerning quality is that quality is a
property of a function. As a property, quality is then deemed as conformance
to performance(s) for that function as objectified through a set of specifications. Functions have performances (a minimum of one per function), and
each performance has a quality (a minimum of one quality measure per each
performance). In this manner, the functions of a product or service are completely objectified by performances and qualities. When goods are within
specification they are considered to be of high quality, contrasted with lowquality goods that are determined to be outside the bounds of specification.
To be within specification means the product or service should function as
expected, while outside specifications signifies potential problems such as
increased wear, unreliable operations, or inoperative functions. Such a
notion of quality is often typified by the statement: the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten. However, Taguchi (1986) proposed a
view of quality that relates to cost and therefore a loss measurable in monetary terms. This loss accrues not only to the designer, developer, and manufacturer but also to the customer, user, and broadly to society as a whole. In
aggregation, these entities represent the ‘seller’ in a buy–sell relationship.
For the seller, their loss is accumulated, throughout the product lifecycle,
from conception to include adjudication of the last lawsuit, or the last simulacrum of support. Whereas Taguchi offers that seller’s losses are incurred up
to the time that the product is shipped, we take a broader perspective and
extend the seller’s losses beyond the shipping event to include support,
* It is often said that quality of a product or service is due to having a certain set of features.
When a feature is “missing” (referenced to the desired set) the product can be considered to
be of lesser quality. Applying this logic for quality within the structure of functions, performance, and quality is interpretable as a missing feature has a quality of zero (reflecting no
performance and no function). Therefore, the quality of a product or service with a “missing”
feature is of lower quality than a product with a “full” set of features.
Systems Integration Management
limits (which are further away from the target value). See Appendix 2 for a
derivation of the loss function that describes the quality based on a variance
from a target value of performance. Choosing a loss function depends on
whether the use is for making predictions, making estimations, estimating
risk, defining optimal testing procedures, or making sense of optimizations
(Hennig and Kutlukaya 2007).
Quality
Quality can be thought of in any number of ways, all leading to the notion of
great importance to the users of products and services, but defined inconsistently (Reeves and Bednar 1994). Here we distinguish quality in the narrow
sense of only that which is measurable through an association with a function.* The interpretation that follows concerning quality is that quality is a
property of a function. As a property, quality is then deemed as conformance
to performance(s) for that function as objectified through a set of specifications. Functions have performances (a minimum of one per function), and
each performance has a quality (a minimum of one quality measure per each
performance). In this manner, the functions of a product or service are completely objectified by performances and qualities. When goods are within
specification they are considered to be of high quality, contrasted with lowquality goods that are determined to be outside the bounds of specification.
To be within specification means the product or service should function as
expected, while outside specifications signifies potential problems such as
increased wear, unreliable operations, or inoperative functions. Such a
notion of quality is often typified by the statement: the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten. However, Taguchi (1986) proposed a
view of quality that relates to cost and therefore a loss measurable in monetary terms. This loss accrues not only to the designer, developer, and manufacturer but also to the customer, user, and broadly to society as a whole. In
aggregation, these entities represent the ‘seller’ in a buy–sell relationship.
For the seller, their loss is accumulated, throughout the product lifecycle,
from conception to include adjudication of the last lawsuit, or the last simulacrum of support. Whereas Taguchi offers that seller’s losses are incurred up
to the time that the product is shipped, we take a broader perspective and
extend the seller’s losses beyond the shipping event to include support,
* It is often said that quality of a product or service is due to having a certain set of features.
When a feature is “missing” (referenced to the desired set) the product can be considered to
be of lesser quality. Applying this logic for quality within the structure of functions, performance, and quality is interpretable as a missing feature has a quality of zero (reflecting no
performance and no function). Therefore, the quality of a product or service with a “missing”
feature is of lower quality than a product with a “full” set of features.