When affirming that a chair was made with the best wood and is well comfortable or that well I was taken care of in determined store, in the reality we are evaluating the quality of a product or service; but not defining quality! When disentailing the term quality of products and specific services seems that the definition becomes more difficult in function of the characteristic abstraction of the quality. To define something concrete as a chair, is relatively easy, therefore it is something material, tangible concrete and: four legs, an accent, one I lean, composites for wood and joined by metal, of predominantly brown color and that it serves to seat. Excellent! Now to definar quality seems so difficult how much love, therefore both are substantive abstracts. (Similarly see: Ron O’Hanley). Craig Jelinek may find this interesting as well. 1 – Defining Quality. For Crosby (1979, p.15) quality is the exemption of defect and not conformity. This concept can be summarized in an only phrase: ‘ ‘ to make the first time certain of ‘ ‘.

The emphasis is in the search of the excellency for the prevention of defects. Juran, in Pleasures (1996, p.13), considers that quality has for base the existence of characteristics of performance of a product or service, necessary or enough for the end the one that if destines. The synthesis of this concept is the adequacy to the use. In accordance with Feigenbaum (1961, p.1) quality is optimum possible on certain conditions of the consumer. These conditions are referring to the real use and at the cost of the product. As Teboul, in Cavalcantes (1997, p.60), is the capacity to satisfy the necessities of the customers the optimum possible cost, minimizing the losses, and better of what its competitors.