Thank you all for your comments

The term "quality management" is very seducing. In the ISO-manual (ISO 8402-1994) it is defined as "totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs." "Quality" refers always to something good. The ISO-good (and not-good) is dependibility, compatibility, interchangeability, safety, conformity, nonconformity, defect, product liability. But the term "quality" should not be used as a single term to express a degree of excellence in a comparative sense, nor should it be used in a quantitative sense for technical evaluations, the manual states. Instead, a qualifying adjective should be used. This is very confusing.

As an art historian I am often confronted with the question of aesthetic quality. This refers for exemple to emotion, behavior, gestalt, taste, affection. As a museum curator I am very concerned with quality in research and the presentation of it and of exhibitions, but in a broader sense I expect that all other activities in the museum should reach a good level of quality. But in this latter case I wonder if we should not talk about efficiency instead of quality. What I mean is that here is the term "efficiency" probably upgraded to "quality". It is therefore necessary to observe the difference between process and product. The interesting problem here is how we describe the quality of our products in terms that are understandable and preferably interchangeble. 

Jan af Burén
Nationalmuseum, Stockholm
[log in to unmask]