What is "quality"? The question was raised in my world about 20 years ago when I first became a computer software tester. In our introductory class, we spent almost 2 hours discussing what "quality" actually meant. We all had to come up with definitions. Then we pooled our answers and came up with a definition. The definition went something like this (it's been a long time ago):
Quality: When a product functions the way it was designed to do.
Example: A child's chair is designed to support the weight of a child (say ... under 75 pounds). It is designed not to tip over and when used correctly is a safe place for a child to sit.
Now, if a 500 pound gorilla sits on that same chair and the chair collapses, does that mean the chair was not built with "quality"? Many would argue the chair was inferior. No, not at all. It was designed and built to withstand a child that weighs 75 pounds or less. It was never intended to support 500 pounds, and a gorilla at that!
Same is true with our vehicles. If the vehicle is built to the manufactures specs, and it meets their requirements, then it's built with "quality".
The problem is, too many have their own definition of what "quality" should be. They want to use the chair for the 500 pound gorilla and then cry foul when the chair breaks.
In my opinion, "opinions" of what vehicle "quality" are suppose to be are just that... "opinions." Figure out what the manufacture originally intended, and then see if it measures up to that test!
(and that's the approach to software testing also ... does it measure up to the requirements of the code? If so, it's quality.) It might not be satisfactorily functional for the end-user, but that does not mean it does not have "quality." It means the end user had different expectations that the product was originally designed for).
