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 