Well written and quite convincing, except for the part where you try to invent new meaning for the word "quality". In all other fields, quality is a property of the inspected object, not of the process creating it. The quality of a chair does not change if it was artisanly created or factory made (assuming the results of both are indistinguishable). There's a lot to say about the benefits of good processes, but putting a lot of care into a piece of junk doesn't turn it to a masterpiece, only activates your Ikea effect.
Quality isn't an act, nor is it a behavior - it's a result
Thanks for the thoughtful challenge. You’re right that in many domains, quality is defined strictly as a property of the final object. If two chairs look and perform the same, traditional inspection says their quality is identical.
But in modern engineering and knowledge work, that framing breaks down. You can get a “good” outcome from a bad system once in a while. You just can’t get it consistently. That’s the core point I’m pushing on.
I’m not saying care magically transforms junk into a masterpiece. I am saying the conditions that produce the work matter as much as the work itself. A team that ships quality once is interesting. A team that can do it reliably, sustainably, and without heroics is what most leaders actually need.
So yes, quality shows up as a result — but in complex work, that result is shaped upstream by the system, not by the final inspection. That’s the distinction I’m calling out.
This distinction is true for physical objects as well - poor process will lead to inconsistent results.
It mainly means that at the very least we need to distinct between quality of the product and quality of the process - and I would go further to claim that since it comes with an intuitive meaning, using "quality" as a shorthand for "effective engineering practices" isn't as meaningful as it ought to be.
Well written and quite convincing, except for the part where you try to invent new meaning for the word "quality". In all other fields, quality is a property of the inspected object, not of the process creating it. The quality of a chair does not change if it was artisanly created or factory made (assuming the results of both are indistinguishable). There's a lot to say about the benefits of good processes, but putting a lot of care into a piece of junk doesn't turn it to a masterpiece, only activates your Ikea effect.
Quality isn't an act, nor is it a behavior - it's a result
Thanks for the thoughtful challenge. You’re right that in many domains, quality is defined strictly as a property of the final object. If two chairs look and perform the same, traditional inspection says their quality is identical.
But in modern engineering and knowledge work, that framing breaks down. You can get a “good” outcome from a bad system once in a while. You just can’t get it consistently. That’s the core point I’m pushing on.
I’m not saying care magically transforms junk into a masterpiece. I am saying the conditions that produce the work matter as much as the work itself. A team that ships quality once is interesting. A team that can do it reliably, sustainably, and without heroics is what most leaders actually need.
So yes, quality shows up as a result — but in complex work, that result is shaped upstream by the system, not by the final inspection. That’s the distinction I’m calling out.
This distinction is true for physical objects as well - poor process will lead to inconsistent results.
It mainly means that at the very least we need to distinct between quality of the product and quality of the process - and I would go further to claim that since it comes with an intuitive meaning, using "quality" as a shorthand for "effective engineering practices" isn't as meaningful as it ought to be.
Once again my neck is sore from all the nodding. Loved the article Alan.
Well said! Was the repeated line intentional for emphasis, or is that just friction turning into confusion in real time?
It just means that I need to fire my editor
Preach!!