# Can 100% quality be achieved?

**URL:** <https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/can-100-quality-be-achieved/84388>\
**Category:** Discussions\
**Tags:** quality, metrics, quality-moving-targets, targets\
**Created:** [24 April 2025 14:30 UTC](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/can-100-quality-be-achieved/84388 "2025-04-24T14:30:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![geir.gulbrandsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@geir.gulbrandsen](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/u/geir.gulbrandsen)\
**Post date:** [25 April 2025 19:54 UTC](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/can-100-quality-be-achieved/84388/21 "2025-04-25T19:54:55Z")

</div>

I guess we just think differently about how to use and interpret the word “Quality”.  
I do of course know that “a quality X” usually means “a **high** quality X”, but does that mean people are always talking about a **100%** quality X?  
Saying something is “quality” without a qualifier in that way seems a bit unspecific to me.

> Wouldn’t our goal === quality?  
> Our goal+ === quality too of course.

So… “Our goal === Our goal+”?  
How is that useful?  
I would assume Goal+ is “better”, cost more time/money/thoughts/hamsters running faster?  
It doesn’t really make sense to me, but that’s OK. The important thing is that it allows you and your team(s) to communicate clearly.

> When would meeting our goal \<\> quality?

It would clearly be of “some” quality, but if we agree to settle for some quick and hacky solution for now, I think we’d also agree that it’s “probably not a high quality solution”. That’s what I meant in my original post, that is “ **the** quality” of the thing, right now, but it doesn’t mean it’s good, or great quality.  
Good Enough is good enough, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.

I don’t know if I’m explaining my thoughts well, but it’s late in the week 😄

[Previous page](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/can-100-quality-be-achieved/84388.md?page=1)