Talk:Quality costs

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After over two years of open discussion, there still is no consensus to merge these two articles. I am therefore closing the discussion. WTF? (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

After reading Quality costs and Cost of poor quality, I think they are referring to the same thing. --Quest for Truth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a good merger to me. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• They should only be merged if a WP:RS establishes that they are the same thing, otherwise you violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Harrington's claim is that COPQ (what he came up with) is different than Feigenbaum's original concept. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The articles seem to be talking about the same thing. I don't know if the source material is. I would recommend merging them,. disambiguating the concepts within a single article and then spinning out sections as needed. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have the same feeling with Protonk. Right-hand traffic and left-hand traffic are two different things, but they were in Right- and left-hand traffic. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is unnecessary to make a separate article for every concept. A better way is to merge them into a single article with a section explaining the differences between the two terms. --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• While both articles describe a method of dealing with quality costs, it are definately two different (albeit similar) methods. They could be merged in a way like left- and right-hand traffic, but the distinction between the two approaches have to be kept in my opinion. 87.213.192.234 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

patnclaire (patnclaire). According to each post Feigenbaum was the original while Harrington was the more recent. Recentcy does not imply better; only newer. AV Feigenbaum wrote about Prevention Costs, Appraisal Costs, and Failure Costs. Failure Costs were sub divided into Internal Failure Costs and External Failure Costs. Harrington divided Quality Costs into Direct and Indirect Costs. These were more palatable to public accountants. I vote for keeping them separate unless the person who merges the two Wikis keeps all the Feigenbaum material, and it goes in front of the Harrington material. The two, from a Total Quality point of view, really are different perspectives about the same material.Patnclaire (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with people saying they refer to the same thing, i.e. costs due to quality. I would merge them. I think the concepts are the same. Where I work we use the terms COPQ (="Resultant poor quality cost") and COC (Cost of conformance) (="Controllable poor quality cost"), I think they are better because COC is not a cost due to poor quality but from QA. Then you have net savings (that can be added to EBIT) as the COPQ reduction minus the COC increase to sustain that reduction. We also use the concept of OPQ (opportunity from perfecting quality) that is the sum of COPQ and the savings that could be done by improving the process etc., that is, OPQ is the total reduction in money you can get by improving the process and avoiding quality losses - though you never get it all because COPQ reduction is only worth if the related COC is lower. Brindis15 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I predict that after merging the two, we'll see an unending stream of proposals to move to one name or the other, rearranging so that Harrington's definition comes first, then rearranging so that Feigenbaum's definition comes first, the rearranging so that Harrington's definition comes first again as each new editor discovers that the article doesn't emphasize what he or she was taught. Keep it as is—that way, the quality costs people find what they want and the COPQ people find what they want. There are plenty of links already should anyone want to navigate between the two articles. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.