Quality and Psychology

Quality and Psychology

Prediction of human behavior is one of the expected goals of psychology that justify its value as a science.  The combination of percentage and statistics elevated the use of psychology in the realm of productivity, efficiency and effectiveness.  Contemporary industrial psychology has routinely improved the performance of man as a producer of goods and services as well as a consumer of goods and services.

Along the trajectory of this historical tide, the very definition of quality also had its own evolution.  From the usual definition of “we know what it is, we just can’t articulate it” to the more industrial definition of “fitness for use” and “conformance to requirements”, the definition of quality is even expanded to the horizon of “exceeding expectations”.

The transcended definition of quality as “we all know what it is, we just cannot articulate it” indicates the assumption that everyone has a pre-conceived notion of what quality is and the general inability of many to capture its meaning in quantifiable terms. 

The industrial definition of “fitness for use” and “conformance to requirements” reflects the mass production mentality and tendency of the era wherein mass production is equated with mass consumption.

The expanded definition of “exceeding expectations” reflects the present tenor and demand of times – consumers and producers have only one thing in their mind, and that mantra falls on “exceeding expectations” regardless of the requirement and production of goods and services.

In mass consumption, “conformance to requirements” and “fitness for use” is enough to keep the flow of production going but in contemporary requirements, people and typical consumers, want to be wowed with innovation, creativity and simplicity.

Apple computers with its production of elegant computers, I pods, I pads, and I phones have consistently excited consumers with its products and because of its repeatability of delightful products, they are even richer than the US government in terms of cash on hand.

Quality can be predicted through adherence to some ISO procedures.  Quality can be interpreted with adherence to some ISO principles.  Quality can be described with adherence to some ISO notions.  Quality can be understood with some ISO concepts.  Quality can be controlled with some ISO ideas.  Furthermore, quality should be under psychology and not the other way around.  In some cases, it is the quality precept that wags the organization – now that is an anomaly since quality via ISO is just an indicative meter and not a conclusive method of identifying quality in an organization.