Various definitions of the concept of quality have been put forward.
One generic definition (Pass, 2006b) is as follows:
The overall characteristics of a product or service that fulfill the requirements of customers in terms of quality.
This definition aligns with the viewpoint of Joseph Juran, who, in the 1950s, defined quality as ‘fitness for use’ (as quoted in ASQ, 2019).
This definition is largely consistent with the definition of quality provided by APM (2019, p. 214):
The suitability for the intended purpose and the degree to which the output of a process or the process itself conforms to the requirements.
Now take a moment to consider the following statements about quality. Which ones do you agree with?
- Quality should prioritize the customer’s needs.
- Quality is an internal focus.
- Quality should be considered from the project’s inception.
- The execution phase of a project is crucial for achieving quality goals.
- Quality issues should be openly discussed to identify corrective actions.
- Quality problems should be concealed from customers and possibly managers.
- Individuals are enthusiastic about producing high-quality outcomes.
- Team members do not produce quality outputs without close supervision.
Share your thoughts on these statements in the discussion section below.
Quality should be considered from the project inception
Quality, by definition, is about meeting customer needs and fulfilling intended purpose, a principle consistent across Juran’s “fitness for use,” Pass’s generic definition, and the APM’s framing around suitability and conformance to requirements. This makes statements 1 and 5 clearly correct: quality must be anchored in customer requirements, and quality issues must be discussed openly so corrective action can be taken before problems compound. Statements 2, 6, and 8 are equally clearly wrong — quality is not an internal focus, concealment of problems only turns manageable issues into crises, and most people are naturally motivated to produce good work when given clear standards and trust rather than surveillance.
The most important statement is number 3: quality should be considered from a project’s inception. This is not simply good practice; it is a structural necessity. The decisions made at the outset of a project, including how requirements are defined, what “fit for purpose” means to the customer, and what quality standards will apply, create the conditions in which quality either becomes achievable or fundamentally impossible to recover. Attempting to introduce quality considerations during execution, or worse, at delivery, is expensive and rarely sufficient to correct flaws that were baked in from the start.
Statement 4 is partially true but needs qualification. Execution matters, but it cannot compensate for a weak inception. Where quality has been properly defined and planned from the beginning, the execution phase is where that planning is realised, making it important rather than foundational. The real determinant of quality outcomes is the work done before execution begins: clear requirements, agreed standards, and quality checkpoints built into the project lifecycle from day one.
“Quality should be considered from the project’s inception” means that quality should not be treated as an afterthought or something checked only at the end of a project. Instead, it should be built into every stage of the project from the very beginning.
When a project starts, clear quality standards, requirements, and objectives should be defined alongside the project’s scope, budget, and timeline. By considering quality during planning, teams can identify potential risks, establish testing procedures, allocate necessary resources, and ensure that deliverables meet stakeholder expectations.
Integrating quality from the outset helps reduce errors, rework, delays, and costs that may arise if defects are discovered later in the project. It also promotes continuous improvement, better decision-making, and higher customer satisfaction. In essence, quality becomes a shared responsibility throughout the project lifecycle rather than the sole responsibility of the quality assurance team.
I agree with the statement that says quality should be considered from the projects inception. When starting a project, the PM should have the best team members on board and should have a meeting with them to discuss about delivering a successful project, thereby putting in their best so that the project that will be pleasing to the end users.
I also agree that quality issues should be openly discussed to identify corrective issues. If this discussion is not carried out, the team members might deliver output that doesn’t meet the standard of the end user. In order for that not to happen, the project manager must see to it that the team members have what they need and when they need it to achieve the goals that they set out to achieve, which is delivering quality projects.
Team members do not produce quality output without close supervision. I think this is true because if the project manager doesn’t keep a close eye on the team members, doesn’t communicate with the team members to ensure that things are going on track, they will produce inferior output and they might have to start all over again, and this will lead to added stress, pressure and more money might be spent trying to correct the mistakes made. Therefore, it is very important for close supervision to be carried out on the part of the project manager.
I agree with the statement that says quality should be considered from the projects inception. When starting a project, the PM should have the best team members on board and should have a meeting with them to discuss about delivering a successful, thereby putting in their best so that the project that will be pleasing to the end users.
I also agree that quality issues should be openly discussed to identify corrective issues. If this discussion is not carried out, the team members might deliver output that doesn’t meet the standard of the end user. In order for that not to happen, the project manager must see to it that the team members have what they need and when they need it to achieve the goals that they set out to achieve, which is delivering quality projects.
Team members do not produce quality output without close supervision. I think this is true because if the project manager doesn’t keep a close eye on the team members, doesn’t communicate with the team members to ensure that things are going on track, they will produce inferior output and they might have to start all over again, and this will lead to added stress, pressure and more money might be spent trying to correct the mistakes made. Therefore, it is very important for close supervision to be carried out on the part of the project manager.
3. Quality should be considered from project inception
I agree that quality should priorities the client’s needs but it should also be a reflecrion of the organisations ability to performno.matter who the client is. Quality is definitely an internal focus and should be prioritised from inception and monitored as one of the KPIs during observation.
Quality issues should indeed be discussed openly. It is important for the team to be clear on what is expected at the end.
Quality products and services should never be compromised. Every stakeholder and end user expects value, reliability, and excellence.
One of the most effective ways to measure quality delivery is through feedback. Honest feedback provides insight into customer experience, highlights areas for improvement, and confirms whether expectations are truly being met.
Organizations that listen to feedback and act on it consistently position themselves for long-term trust, growth, and success.
Quality is non-negotiable. It must be upheld for stakeholders, team members, and end consumers alike because consistent quality is what drives excellent, satisfactory outcomes.
As the saying goes: over deliver, never underdeliver. That’s the true insight into quality work.