1

Response to Baurzhan’s post.

I like how you drew insights about quality from principles conceived by quality management

gurus. Anyone who might have read more about quality management, will know that Dr. Juran, a

quality management guru introduced the phrase "fitness for purpose." You gave a conceptual

definition of quality that everyone can understand and relate to. In the good quality section, the

description is real, and everyone can correctively conclude that Toyota's automobiles and garage

services are exemplary. In the bad quality section, cleaning a jacket would not necessarily take 3

days, and so in the first place, the laundry offers bad cleaning services. Overall, your approach to

quality is conceptual and professional.

Response to Jiacheng’s post.

Your post is okay although I would suggest that you make a more precise definition that quality

is not a one-time perfection but a progressive endeavor that meets the needs of both the

consumers and the company itself. Nevertheless, I agree with you that quality can only be

achieved by understanding and liaising with every level in the organization to promote

efficiency. Your illustration of good quality is concise as you would not expect the city marathon

organizers to provide extra packs after only contributing 100 yuan for the event. These are

additional services to the event attendants. The bad quality service is also clear as everyone will

expect a highly-priced item to service longer, which turns out not the case.

Response to Sheng’s post.

From what I have learned from your post, you have inclined the definition of quality to projects

which is a more career objective approach. However, I think this limits the approach to quality as

it is a broad subject that ranges across many business disciplines. Meanwhile, I like how you
 2

define quality as achieving the basic service; it's a good definition, but from another view, we

would like to identify quality with the whole scope in that everything sustains what it is intended

for. I would also suggest that you purpose on giving your thought on how we can increase our

understanding of quality. It would be more educational to because someone else can refute or

build on the idea. On the description of a good quality example, I think many organizations offer

aftersales services just like Nike. Thus, I would suggest that you choose a more exceptional

service that gives the provider more credit on top of others. Meanwhile, the bad quality example

was clear as every customer will expect every item to reflect the description.

Response to Elena’s post.

I like your definition of quality from what the customers perceive about the product. However, in

my opinion, we cannot determine quality from the customer's viewpoint; we can only conclude

the after-effect or the continued performance of the product per the customer's expectations. To

achieve a progressive performance, we have to understand the customers' needs and tailor the

services in that line. Also, kindly give your thought on how we can increase our understanding of

quality, which vital in learning about quality management. Everyone will agree that a shoe that

provides service longer than expected is deemed to be of good quality. On the other hand, how

the customer perception about the service prints the initial image of the service provider. If the

service is not fulfilling, like in your case, then any other customer will perceive it as bad quality.