On the subject of quality

In response to Pierre's commentary:

Implementing a system and imbuing a culture based on quality would be cost effective in the long term if such measures were taken at the birth of an organisation.

If I had my very own AIESEC territory/business I'm sure that would be part of the approach I would take. However, I have also learnt this year that quality is also a culturally based assumption. That is, quality is not a universally defined measure. Moving from one location to another, quality for some is ensuring the minimum requirements, for others it is surpassing those and for others still it is discussing measures and deciding not to forge ahead, in case the standards cannot be met. (On this last point I'll direct towards the paragraph below.)

There is an English saying (perhaps other cultures have a similar view) that goes along the lines of “if you cannot do something right, do not do it at all.” There is also another term which goes a little something like “it is better to have loved and lost than to not have loved at all.”

Quality is potentially a black and white issue (in regard to this organisation). Before my experience in China I would have said there were many shades of grey to this issue, but I can definitely see this in full, brilliant colour now.

You can most certainly argue that quality is fundamentally necessary in some industries, otherwise it would be deemed that you were taking unneccessary and possibly drastic risks. Take for instance the issue of medical care. I believe in this case there are very clear quality guidelines. Playing around so directly with human life requires a far greater attention to detail and care. Anything less is unacceptable.

For all this talk of quality in the end though, it is just talk. Virtute non verbis, my friends. Actions not words should be the true mark of quality in an organisation.

The pursuit of excellence is never an easy task; it does, however, bring up many points for critical thought.

(Thanks Pierre)