ISSN 01476882, Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 2013, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 72–82. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2013. Original Russian Text © A.S. Lobanov, 2013, published in NauchnoTechnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 1, 2013, No. 5, pp. 11–22.

The Basic Concepts of Qualimetry A. S. Lobanov Russian State Social University, Sochi Branch, ul. Krymskaya 29B, Sochi, Russia email: [email protected] Received January 21, 2013

Abstract—The necessity and possibility of the development of the basic concepts of qualimetry, including assessment objects, quality, property, and quality management, are justified. The author offers specified def initions of these concepts. The quality and property concepts are considered and defined in applied and philosophical interpretations. It is proposed that one reject the integral quality concept that is used at present. Keywords: quality, qualimetry, assessment object, integral quality, quality management DOI: 10.3103/S0147688213020044

Any scientific theory is based on the system of its concepts. The basic concepts of qualimetry include assessment objects, quality, property, and quality man agement. More than 40 years ago, Professor G. Azgal’dov, the founder of theoretical and applied qualimetry, defined these terms and since that time he has been systematically specifying them. The spheres of application of qualimetry are diverse and its possi bilities and applicability can be extended. The pro posed evolution and specification of its basic terms serves the same goal.

including such properties as content, volume, quality of paper and type, and so on up to its reliability as a source of information in the concept of its quality. Furthermore, reliability can also be considered as a complex property, which includes all classical compo nents, such as conservability and longevity. All the listed properties of book are transparent and can be measured using adequate parameters, except for con tent. 3. How can art works be assessed using qualimetry tools? We speak about poems, pictures, sculptures, dances, operas, films, etc. We do not have an unam biguous answer to this question. These problems need further understanding in terms of qualimetry. More over, the attempts to develop techniques for assessing the quality of works of literature and art inevitably lead to the necessity to develop a methodical provision and a theory of qualimetry. 4. The technology for the quality assessment of both animate and inanimate objects assumes their consideration as a system in a certain state. In this connection, one more important stage should be added to the classical algorithm for the development of a technique for quality assessment. This stage includes object analysis in terms of a systems approach. 5. A person’s quality can be spoken about if we con sider it from a certain standpoint. The same person can be of interest as a son, a brother, a husband, a sales manager, a potential client of a bank, etc. 6. How can the quality of a process be assessed? Here, there are vast possibilities for specialists in qual imetry. When we assess the quality of a process we take into consideration the object about whose existence we speak. Moreover, we primarily should consider this object although we assess the process. However, this should be done not statically, not in a fixed state, but in

THE CONCEPT OF AN ASSESSMENT OBJECT Azgal’dov stresses in his works that qualimetry assumes the possibility of assessing the quality of any object and lists the types of these objects. “An object is any thing or process that is: animate (e.g., a citizen) and inanimate (e.g., a car); a product of labor (e.g., a house) or a product of nature (e.g., the natural landscape of the place where citizens live); material (e.g., industrial enterprise) or ideal (e.g., a product of art that is arranged as a book title); natural (e.g., landscape) or artificial (a set of land scape architectural constructions); products (clothes) or services (medical services); objects (roads) or processes (living processes that together provide life quality)” [1, p. 9]. The list can be discussed as follows. 1. Presently, not all the constituents of the list are understood profoundly as assessment objects of qual ity using qualimetric tools. 2. Ideal objects are taken to mean objects in the mental form. If we speak about a book we hardly mean only its title. A book can be assessed comprehensively, 72

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF QUALIMETRY

dynamics during the course of its transition from state to state. Of particular interest here is the sequence of state changes and the characteristics of this change rather than the characteristics of the object’s states. 7. A phenomenon can be an object of assessment. A phenomenon can be considered either as a process (a seismic sea wave, earthquake, or a conflict in organi zation) or the process result (the same seismic sea wave, earthquake, or conflict). If a phenomenon is considered as a process then this is the process of the object’s existence (in our examples these objects are an ocean, the Earth, and an organization’s staff) in time. We can include the following properties in the phe nomenon quality depending on the goals of its assess ment: the properties that cause the phenomenon; the properties of the process of an object’s transi tion from state to state that result in the phenomenon; the object’s properties that characterize the phe nomenon as the result of the process. 8. A service is, rigorously speaking, a process as well. A service consists of the purposeful activities of a subject or an organization in favor of another subject or an organization. Its nature lies in the fact that the outcome, or final result are of particular significance. The process of service provision along with its result can be of great importance for the developers of a technique for quality assessment. In both cases, the functioning object will be represented by the set of interacting bodies, namely, service providers and ser vice recipients. The activities of specialists in qualimetry on devel oping techniques for assessing object quality not only enrich the methodology but also contribute into the theoretical aspect of qualimetry.

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF QUALITY Quality is the object of qualimetry as a field of knowledge. Its methodology, theory, and methodical content serve to provide the quantitative assessment or, in other words, the measurement of, an object’s quality. This is why the concept of quality is the central concept in qualimetry. There are many interpretations of the quality con cept in social practice, which is due to the infinite vari ety of phenomena and objects. Comparing these inter pretations, one may note how diverse they are and at the same time insufficient and incorrect. However, each time they somehow capture the idea of people’s interest in satisfying certain needs owing to the high quality of an object. One should stress here that the concept of quality originated as a philosophical category rather than an application. The category of quality reflects an impor

73

tant part of an object’s reality, namely, certainty. The object’s quality is not reduced to its individual proper ties and is related to an object as a whole and cannot be separated from it. Therefore, the concept of quality is related to objective reality. A critical analysis of existing definitions of quality was performed in [2]. As noted, according to one of the basic propositions of terminological science, the definition of the quality term in the applied sense (the quality of production) proceeding from the hierarchic relationships between concepts should not contradict the fundamental concept of quality as a category. However, the definitions of quality in the applied sense of word do not correspond to its philosophical definition, which violates the standards, e.g., GOST 1546779 and International Standards ISO 84002:86 and ISO 9000:94. In these standards, quality is defined as not only a set of an objectively inherent product properties but also as the satisfaction of needs (the cor respondence to requirements). Such a contradiction inevitably leads to confusion. Quality per se without context is a neutral concept. It does not characterize a thing as being good or bad. If a product exists it has certain properties irrespective of meeting some person’s needs. In a number of his works, Azagal’dov gave defini tions of other concepts that are close to the concept of quality (as e.g., in [1]) but could not substitute it. They are usefulness, technical level, value, effectiveness, consumer cost, and integral quality. The crossing semantics of these concepts deepens the confusion in the understanding of the applied meaning of quality. Qualimetric tools are so good that we may speak about limitless spheres of their practical application. We can only do this if we extend the concept of quality beyond social life, namely, if we remove any reference to a subject’s interest in an object’s quality from the definition. However, this step deprives the understand ing of quality of necessary pragmatism, when we rea son about our own interests in terms of bad or good. How can we solve this unique problem, i.e., purify the concept of quality from confusion and separate it from “semantic relatives,” retain the broad and gen eral interpretation, while retaining the fundamental and applied aspects of the concept, and provide the ability to consider quality as Azgal’dov’s object of qualimetry? We can offer one way out, namely, by giving two definitions of the concept of quality and using both in qualimetry. The first definition is applied, common and pragmatismbased. The second one is fundamen tal; it defines quality as a philosophical category but is formulated through the prism of qualimetry.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

74

LOBANOV

AN APPLIED INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY The concept of quality and related terminology should be standardized in order to make effective joint activities possible. In 1970, the basic Soviet standard on product qual ity, GOST 1546770, contained a definition that was transmitted to its later edition, GOST 1546779: “the quality of a product is the set of product properties that make it suitable for meeting the needs in accordance with its designation.” The same standard gives also the defi nition of the concept of a property: “the property of a product is an objective feature of a product that provides its ability to meet certain needs in accordance with its designation.” In 1986, the International Standardization Organi zation in its ISO 840286 standard formulated terms on quality for all basic branches of business and indus try: “quality is the set of properties and characteristics of a product or a service that make it able to meet stated and implied needs.” As one can see, here, the concept of quality was extended compared to the Soviet standard. Both products and services are the objects to be assessed in terms of quality. As well, the class and spec trum of needs to be assessed was extended: stated (by what? by whom? and how?) and implied. The set of an object’s characteristics was added to the set of its prop erties. Note that the concept of a characteristic remained uncertain and nonstandardized, which resulted in total uncertainty of the interpretation of the concept of quality. In 1994, the terminology was specified at the inter national level. In the specification of the concept of quality, the term properties was excluded from its defi nitions: “quality is the set of an object’s characteristics that refer to its ability to meet stated and implied needs” (ISO 840294). However, this did not make the inter pretation more accurate. Moreover, the exclusion of the property term and focus on the nonstandardized term characteristic substantially impoverished the con cept of quality both from philosophical and qualimet ric standpoints, as well as in terms of management. In [3], Azgal’dov cited the data on the evolution of the concept of quality from Aristotle to uptodate applied definitions. However, the evolution of the views of the scientist is interesting as well. In [4], the authors gave the definition that was later used in GOST 1546770 and after this in GOST 1546779 (see above). In [5], quality was again defined as in GOST 1546779 but a new concept was introduced: “the main (single) quality is the quality that is identical to the one governing dominant property that character izes the consumer cost of a product of labor without all its other properties” [5, p. 11]. Note that “the choice of this property should be caused and supported by longterm and longstanding practice of its applica tion as the synonym of the quality of a product of labor.

For example, this may be strength in reference to con crete and the mean daily rate for a watch.” [5, p. 12]. In [6, p. 8], Azgal’dov defined quality as follows: “quality is the set of the properties of an object (both desirable and undesirable or negative) that can mani fest themselves during the production (creation, for mation, construction, or preparation) and application (operation, use, or consumption) of an object that are not related to the expenses spent on its production and consumption.” In [7, p. 10] we can find another defi nition: “quality is the set of only those properties that characterize the results that are obtained in an object’s consumption (both desirable or positive and undesir able or negative) but that do not involve financial expenses on its production and consumption, i.e., this set includes only those properties that are related to the results that are achieved in an object’s consump tion but do not include the properties that are related to the expenses that are spent to provide this result.” Let us compare these two definitions. 1. The first definition uses the words “production” and “application,” which enables one to consider the object’s quality as the central concept of qualimetry at two basic stages of the object’s lifecycle. Later, Azgal’dov avoided the stage of production and pro posed to consider only those properties that are rele vant at the stage of application. 2. The words “application, operation, use, con sumption…” mean that the object is considered in terms of its designation or its main function. Azgzl’dov involved this important factor in the definition of the concept of property; however, it seems advisable to speak about an object’s designation when defining the concept of quality. 3. It can easily be understood what he means when he says “both desirable and undesirable or negative” when talking about an object’s properties. Any object can be of bad quality and not satisfy us in a number of properties. The technique for assessing quality can be devel oped for a class of similar objects (e.g., for mini hotels or tourist organizations) in order to assess the quality of individual representatives of this class. We may develop a technique for assessing one object (e.g., the Dynamo football club, Moscow). In any case, in ref erence and rejected values of property characteristics we bear in mind the best and the worst samples of an object of a certain class. In defining the concept of quality of these objects we include in it the properties that are positively formulated: esthetics, and taste (for a cake); speed and load capacity (for a spaceship); communication skills, honesty, and competence (for manager). We do not include such properties as falsity, stupidity, and boorishness in the concept of quality for manager. When we perceive a particular object from this class, i.e., when assessing its quality we can reveal that the characteristics of some properties (but not the

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF QUALIMETRY

properties themselves!) do not satisfy us and are similar to rejected ones. 4. Azgal’dov separates the concept of quality from expenses spent on its provision. In his works, expenses mean only financial expenses. However, it seems more correct to speak about expenses on all resources, namely, human, technical, informational, technolog ical, organizational culture, financial, and temporal [8, 9]. In line with this, we propose the following defini tion. An object’s quality in terms of application is a set of an object’s qualities that assumes certain results are obtained in accordance with the object’s designation; however, this does not involve the properties of the resources that are used to achieve these results. Here, it is important to stress the following: The semantic field and the context of the designa tion concept contain subjectivism, since the object’s designation is set by a group of subjects who are inter ested in the quality of this object. The words assumes the achievement certain results are included in the definition to stress the possibility of both positive and negative results of an object’s appli cation. A PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY Aristotle (384–322 BC) in his Metaphysics consid ers quality from four standpoints: 1. as a specific distinction of an essence; 2. in terms of quantitatively defined numbers; 3. a qualitative name is given to entity states in ref erence to their locomotion; 4. qualities are properties of things with their assessment. Later, the English philosopher John Locke (1632– 1704) believed that quality is the basic characteristics that are objectively inherent in a subject, such as dimension, shape, and weight. Lock called these prop erties “initial” or “primary” qualities [11]. Locke was the first philosopher to divide qualities into objective and subjective ones. However, the theory of primary and secondary qualities did not belong exclusively to Locke. The division of qualities into objective and subjective was supported by many phi losophers, viz., in the 17th century scientists from Galileo (1564–1642) [12, pp. 118–123] to Boyle (1627–1691) and Newton (1643–1727), the empiri cist philosophers Hobbes (1588–1679) [13, pp. 63– 72] and Locke, the rationalist philosophers Descartes (1596–1650) [12, pp. 178–182] and Spinoza (1632– 1677) [14, pp. 31–43] followed this division. The fundamental definition of quality as a philo sophical category that was given by Hegel in his “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences” is:

75

“Quality is identical to being direct certainty…” “Something is what it is owing to its quality and, when losing its quality it stops being this object…” [15, p. 228]. As one can see, Hegel’s interpretation of quality is similar to Aristotle’s first variant. V.I. Dal’ has given a definition of quality that is similar to the philosophical one: “quality is a property or belonging or everything that constitutes the essence of a person or a thing” [16, p. 99]. However, this defini tion contains a contradiction. On the one hand, a property is Singular and, the other hand, everything assumes the Plural situation… Moreover, Dal’ equals quality to the concept of property and belonging through the or conjunction, thus excluding the possi bility of and. Furthermore, Dal’ did not define the concept of property in his dictionary and belonging is defined as “a property, state of that belongs to some thing or someone; possession, property” [16, p. 428]. In the Great Soviet Encyclopedia it is stated that “quality is a philosophical category to express an inherent essential certainty of an object that is insepa rable from its existence owing to which it is as it is and not another object” [17, p. 551]. Can we assess quan titatively this essential certainty of an object using qualimetric tools? According to Aristotle, quantitative and qualitative definitions of existence similarly to other categories do not exist per se and cannot be separated from an essence. Prior to Aristotle, Greek philosophers tended to see a cause of qualitative changes in nature in its quantitative transformations. For example, Heraclites observed quantitative changes in nature, such as coldness, warm ing, moistening, etc. As a result, the ancient philosopher created a science about measurement, where quality was of topical significance [18, pp. 124–129]. Democritus’ theory about atoms is totally based on quantitative–qual itative relationships [18, pp. 198–203]. Pythagorean adepts also paid great attention to quantitative–qualita tive relationships in the theory of numbers. Aristotle developed the categories of quantity and quality at a more comprehended level. In his Metaphysics Aristotle gives a more detailed definition of quantity than in “Catego ries”: “Quantity is everything that can be divided into parts each of which is unique and given evidently. A quantity is a set if it can be counted and it is a value if it can be measured…” [10, p. 163]. This definition perfectly reflects Aristotle’s idea about the inseparable link between the quantity and quality. According to this, we propose the following defini tion. An object’s quality from the philosophical stand point is the set of an object’s properties that are responsible for its essential certainty. We should stress the following. (1) The fundamental nature of this definition is that it provides the exclusion of any subjectivism and

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

76

LOBANOV

human interest when forming the set of properties of an object for understanding its quality. (2) This formulation orients us to possible approaches for measuring quality. These approaches must measure the object’s quality as a set of its essen tial properties. How representative should this be? They should be sufficiently representative to be able to describe an object as an essential certainty. (3) Only people can measure an object’s quality. But how can we avoid subjectivism in these approaches? How, for example, can we measure the quality of a mountain, a river, or a tree irrespective of human interest? How can coefficients of the signifi cance of the property, as well as reference and permis sible values of a property’s characteristics, be deter mined? Here, only one way seems to be correct, viz., the orientation to the ability of a particular object to retain its essence during its existence. In particular, speaking about a mountain, we should not include in the set of its properties its esthetic value, safe environ ment, safety for alpinists, etc. These properties involve a pragmatic relationship between people and moun tains. The mountain can be broken by water, sun, wind, temperature gradient, seismic activity of the Earth in its region, etc. Therefore, the reference mountain that can be assessed in terms of qualimetry, which is 1.0, is a mountain that is able to remain infi nitely and retain its current essence without the slight est changes in all its essential properties. It should be stressed here that the technique for quality assessment is conventionally developed for the class of similar objects to provide the assessment of the quality of individual objects. The tree of properties should involve all essential properties of the objects of the given class neglecting their inessential properties that are characteristic of objects of similar classes. Here, we can see the notorious and dangerous subjec tivism. The expertise of the developers of the tech nique for quality assessment influences, firstly, the completeness of accounting for all the essential prop erties of the objects of a given class and, secondly, the degree of abstracting, or, in other words, the number of inessential properties that are included in the tree. The errors made in the first case are much more dangerous than those in the second case. THE CONCEPT OF INTEGRAL QUALITY Azgal’dov proposed to use the concept of integral quality in qualimetry. He defined this concept in his works, specifying it from year to year. In [19, p. 14] we read: “Integral quality is the prop erty of the object that characterizes the set of its quality and effectiveness. Therefore, integral quality is the most general characteristic of an object that takes account of all its properties” (1971). In [5, p. 12]: “Integral quality is the quality that is governed by the set of all the functional, esthetic, and

economic properties, i.e., is expressed by the set of consumer cost and total expenses on the production and consumption of this product” (1973). In [7, p. 11]: “Integral quality is an object’s prop erty that characterizes the set of its qualities and effec tiveness (2012). The effectiveness is taken as the “set of an object’s properties that characterize the financial expenses on its production and consumption” (Ibid). Note that in the second case, the definition of inte gral quality is given through the concept of quality, which is methodologically incorrect [20]. However, a more serious problem is also present. The construction of a tree of an object’s properties is one of the central stages in the development of a qualimetric technique for quality assessment. As Azgal’dov noted in his works (e.g., [21, p. 105]), the integral quality in the tree of properties is divided into two properties at the next stage, viz., an object’s qual ity (the result for society) and the object’s effectiveness (the expenses spent by society on the production and consumption of the object). In this case, the tree must satisfy the following requirements: the formulation of the properties that constitute the quality must be aimed at improving the results that are obtained when using the tree and the formulation of the properties that constitute the effectiveness must be aimed at achieving the obtained results [21, p. 95]. However, financial expenses are cost rather than effectiveness. We are interested in increasing the quality characteris tics (at the next stages, quality as a complex property can be decomposed, e.g., into functionality, esthetic attractiveness, and ergonomic efficiency) and decreas ing the cost. This is why, meeting the above require ments for the tree of properties leads to a direct viola tion of an important rule, namely, provision of inde pendence in property preference in the same group. Thus, the quality and effectiveness properties, which constitute the integral quality, are dependable in pref erence and cannot be united into one group. This fact does not allow the concept of integral quality to be used in the above interpretation. In addition, another factor exists that impedes the use of the concept of integral quality. The issue is that the aboveproposed fundamental definition of quality extends the volume of the concept of object to infinity. Consideration of the expenses spent on the production and consumption of a set of objects (sun, cleaning in the woods, lilac bushes, etc.) does not make sense. Expenses on the production and consumption of an object to be assessed using the qualimetric method should be regarded if the object corresponds to the applied meaning of quality. They should be taken into account when developing and applying a program for an object’s quality control rather than in the concept of quality or integral quality.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF QUALIMETRY

THE CONCEPT OF PROPERTY Property is one of the central concepts in qualime try, since it forms the basis of the concept of quality. Azgaldov’s interpretation of this term has varied with out losing its essence. Thus, a property is defined as “an object’s charac teristic (peculiarity or distinction) that meets a need” (1981) [21, p. 18]. In [7, p. 9], we can find a more detailed definition: “a property is a feature, characteristic, or peculiarity of an object that manifests itself in the course of its operation, use, or application (these will be used as synonyms below) according to its designation (e.g., life expectancy of the population of an object)” (2012). We can comment on the last definition as follows. 1. The terms feature, characteristic, and peculiarity have semantic distinctions. If one includes them in the definition of a concept then the definition of each of them is required. It seems that the concept of peculiar ity, first, does not need any explanations, i.e., it can remain undefined; second, it is a more general con cept than feature and characteristic. 2. This variant of Azgal’dov’s definition of quality, along with the others, binds an object’s quality with its designation. In this interpretation, the objects of qual imetry can be considered from the standpoint of human interest in their quality. 3. The cited example the “life expectancy of the population of an object” is a characteristic of a prop erty rather than the property itself. It is of primary importance to determine whether we should regard an object’s properties that are shown in the object’s production in the concept of quality. Azgal’dov, in his early works answered this question positively. His position was given in the definitions of the concept of property in GOST 1546770 and GOST 1546779: “a product’s property is its objective pecu liarity that can be seen during its production, opera tion, or consumption” [22, p. 2, 23]. In his recent works, the founder of modern qualim etry changed his point of view; however, here, we can find contradictions. As follows from the above definition [7, p. 9], the properties that are shown at the production stage are disregarded. However, on the next page, the author stresses that “…properties are not just an object’s fea tures (peculiarities and characteristics), only those of them that are shown at the stages of an object’s pro duction and consumption” [7, p.10]. At the same time, below, we read: “the properties that are shown at the stage of an object’s production do not refer to the properties that constitute the quality…” [7, p. 11]. Contradictions are present in the approaches to the concepts of quality, effectiveness, and integral quality. In [1, 4, 7], the concept of effectiveness included the financial expenses spent on the production and con

77

sumption of an object. Effectiveness is a constituent of integral quality. Therefore, integral quality should include an object’s properties that are shown at the stage of its production. These properties should be taken into consideration in the concept of quality. However, Azgal’dov rejected this opinion in recent years. The last contradiction makes the use of the concept of integral quality in the above interpretation doubtful. What conclusion can be drawn? Practice shows that the need to consider an object during its production, formation, construction, prep aration, etc. arises extremely rarely. When this neces sity does arise, it is more correct to speak about the quality of an object’s production technology rather than of its quality. Here, we should consider individual technological stages and the results of these stages. Therefore, it is advisable to set the concept of an object’s quality free from those properties that can manifest prior to its origination, since, rigorously speaking, these are the properties of individual stages or the entire set of stages of its production technology rather than of an object (as it does not exist yet). We noted that the technology for assessing an object’s quality assumes its consideration as a system in a certain state. In other words, a certain state of an object is fixed in space and time and is considered and assessed in terms of qualimetry. Therefore, the con cept of an object’s (system) property should be ana lyzed in connection with the concept of an object’s (system below) state. When substantiating the conceptual basis of system science, the following concepts and propositions were introduced in [24–26], which can be of practical interest in our context. The system state at a certain moment is governed by its structure at this moment and the existence of certain properties of the system that are fixed in time, as well as certain attributes of these properties and certain quan titative values of these attributes. It should be noted that distinguishing between the concept of an objective and subjective system states seems to be valid. The objective concepts that will be introduced below can be considered as philosophical, since they are of an essential nature. The objective system state at a certain moment is governed by the existence of objective system struc tures fixed in time, objective properties, objective property attributes, and the objective quantitative val ues of these attributes. The subjective system state at a certain moment is the image of the objective system state in the mind of an individual at this moment. The subjective system state is governed by the existence of subjective system structure fixed in time, subjective properties, subjec tive property attributes, and the subjective quantitative values of these attributes.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

78

LOBANOV

Any subject, when creating a mental image of an objective system state, does not consider individual constituents of the system at the deeper hierarchic lev els of the system’s structure. Depending on the goal that is set by the subject when exploring the system, different images of the same objective state of the system can arise in his consciousness. These images will differ from each other in their details. Subjective system states are always unreliable since, first, they reflect all of the characteristics (structure, properties, etc.) of the objective system state incompletely and, second, may erroneously reflect some characteristics of the objec tive system state. The objective property of an object is its objective peculiarity that manifests itself relative to other objects (including subjects as objects of action) in the course of the existence of the given object. The subjective property of an object is its subjective peculiarity that, in an individual’s opinion, manifests itself in relation to other objects or in relation to sub jects in the course of the existence of the given object. We can speak about objective and subjective attributes of the same property of an object and about their quantitative characteristics in a similar way. The property attribute is either an immeasurable or measurable characteristic of the property of an object. Alternative attributes are of great significance in the management of an object’s quality among immeasur able attributes. These attributes can have only two mutually exclusive variants. For example, a candidate to a vacancy can either have a higher education or not and multimedia devices either are available in an audi torium or they are not. How can the correlation of the property and prop erty attribute be explained? An object’s properties manifest themselves via their specific attributes, i.e., at a certain moment each property of an object is expressed as a certain attribute. For example, an object has a color. This is a prop erty. Water and air do not have this property. Let the object color be yellow. This is a real actual manifesta tion of the property. This is an attribute. A chameleon is green now and brown in a minute, i.e., the color is expressed by one attribute and in a minute it has another attribute. A measurable attribute can be assessed using one or several characteristics. For example, color can be characterized by intensity. For this, the color intensity should be related to the respec tive page of the color atlas and the choice of an identi cal square in the system of coordinates. Let us consider another example. A ticker of a floor clock is able to move. The motion is oscillatory and inverse, i.e., hither and thither. This kind of motion is an attribute; this is the form of the occurrence of the property for an object and the form of the property manifestation for an observer. The frequency and amplitude of oscillations are the characteristics of the

attribute that can be measured and expressed quanti tatively. With due regard for the above, we should discuss the essence of the concept of characteristic. We read in [7]: “The characteristic of a property (a quality, an inte gral quality) is a quantitative characteristic of a prop erty (a quality, an integral quality). We believe that it is more correct to say that the characteristic of a property attribute is a quantitative characteristic of a measured attribute of an object’s quality.” With regard to the above, we may give the following definitions. A property in the philosophical interpretation is an object’s peculiarity that is shown during its existence and creates, along with other similar peculiarities, its essential certainty. A property in the philosophical interpretation is an objective peculiarity of an object, since it actually manifests itself during its existence irrespective of human will. A Property in an applied interpretation is the object’s peculiarity that is shown during its application according to its designation. The phrase “according to its designation” is due to the following considerations. For example, one can imagine the following situation. A person in a sports suit decided to go to the forest to pick mushrooms. The mushrooms were too numerous and the jacket is used as a container for the mushrooms. Then, the absolute majority of the jacket’s properties that were assumed when the jacket was considered as a sample of sports wear (waterproof, esthetically attractive, fashionable, etc.) will become senseless. At the same time, a prop erty such as the ability of the lining to be washed easily in the case of mushroom spots becomes significant. This property is not related to the basic commonly accepted use of the jacket. Therefore, it will not be taken into consideration when the quality of the sports suit is assessed. We may add that a property in the applied interpre tation is a subjective peculiarity of an object. It is sub jective because a particular subject can either perceive or not perceive the attribute through which the given property is shown objectively. A subject can invalidly measure a characteristic of a validly perceptible attribute. We should focus our attention on a fact that is essen tial in understanding the expression “property in the applied interpretation,” which is often ignored in prac tice. This is that properties are not just the peculiarities of an object but only those of them that are shown in the course of its application according to its use. For example, one has the wish and need to develop a technique for the quality assessment of candidates for the position of the head of the credit department of a bank. The developers of such as technique will hardly include such properties as the rate of typing and visual appeal in the concept of quality. When developing a technique for the quality assessment of candidates for

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF QUALIMETRY

the position of the secretary of the head of an organi zation, these properties will be meaningful and will be included in the tree of properties. In qualimetry all properties are divided intro three types according to complexity, namely, simple, quasi simple, and complex. The authors of [1, 7] gave definitions of these con cepts. “A complex property is a property that can be divided (decomposed) into two or more simpler properties” [1, p.57]. “A simple property is a property that cannot be divided into two or more simpler properties” [7, p. 57]. “Quasisimple properties are properties that are com plex and can be divided into simpler properties but there is no need to do this, since a functional and correlational dependence between this complex property and a group of simpler properties is known” [1, p. 86]. We can comment on these definitions as follows. 1. The definition of a complex property is incorrect since actually, a complex property can be divided not only into simpler properties but into simple and quasi simple properties as well. 2. The definition of simple property is also incorrect. When they say that “a simple property…cannot be divided into simpler properties” the authors say that a simple property is a complex property. 3. The definition of a quasisimple property is given via the concept of a complex property. Moreover, in the first part of the definition a quasisimple property is set equal to a complex one. Only in the second part do the authors specify why a complex quasisimple property is not complex. Taking this into account, we will give our defini tions. A simple property is a property that cannot be decomposed into constituents. A quasisimple property is a property that is poten tially complex; however, when developing a technique for quality assessment the creators decide not to decompose it into constituents. A complex property is a property that when develop ing the technique for quality assessment is decided to decompose into less complex, quasisimple, or simple ones. The above definitions should also be discussed. 1. There exist many properties that are inherent in different similar objects and are essentially simplex, i.e., essentially undividable. For example, dimensions (length, width, height) of a room, a worker’s age, or a worker’s higher professional education Thus, the word length is simple in the tree of properties of a University auditorium, the trade hall of a shop, gymnasium, office room, and so forth. It cannot be decomposed in any case.

79

2. It is important to stress the words when develop ing a technique for quality assessment in two last defini tions. Let it be decided to consider communication skills during the development of a technique for quality assessment of a candidate for the position of advertise ment manager. The developers of this technique understood that this property could be decomposed into some constituents but they considered it as quasi simple. It remained on the highest level in the tree of properties. In another case, a technique for quality assessment was developed for an advertisement manager. The developers of this technique agreed to consider com munication skills” as meaningful but they decided to decompose them into three constituents: communica tion skills with direct bosses, communication skills with colleagues, and communication skills with cli ents. Why did these variants appear? A required and necessary cause for considering this property as a quasisimple one is the impossibility of assessing the above constituents in a real candidate for the position. Nobody knows him personally; however, his communication skills can be assessed during talks, interviews, business games, etc. As for an actual manager, the experts who know him can easily assess his manner of communication with bosses, colleagues, and clients. However, it should be stressed that the developers of a technique for quality assessment also could consider her com munication skill as a quasisimple property. Much depends on the conditions of the manager’s work, advertisement type, and other characteristics that are revealed at an earlier stage of the development of the technique. 3. A quasisimple property of an object is poten tially complex but not yet decomposed in a given tree of properties. The concept of quasisimple is charac terized by potentiality. While seeing a property at the highest level of the tree we often try to determine whether it is simple or can be decomposed into its con stituents. A complex property of an object is a property that cannot be decomposed further and has already been subjected to decomposition in the given tree. The essence of this concept lies in completeness, like the use of the Present Perfect in English. THE ESSENCE OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT CONCEPT Quality management has been introduced in the language of management as a field of activities and a science. It has been introduced not only at the level of human communication in this sphere but also at the level of state and international standards. Neverthe less, it should be noted that this word combinations

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

80

LOBANOV

Processes that are related to variations in an object’s quality [7, p. 16] No. Quality variation ΔQq Time variation ΔT

Process in relation to an object’s quality variation

ΔT?

IMPROVEMENT (in unknown ranges during an unknown period of time)

ΔQ ? > 0 or 0 > ΔQ ?

ΔT?

UNCERTAINTY (relative to variation in quality and a period of time)

ΔQ ? < 0

q

ΔT?

IMPAIRMENT (in unknown ranges during an unknown period of time)

ΔQ ? > 0

q

ΔTs

IMPROVEMENT (in unknown ranges during a specified period of time)

5

ΔQ ? > 0 or 0 > ΔQ ?

ΔTs

UNCERTAINTY (relative to quality variation)

6

ΔQ ? < 0

q

ΔTs

IMPAIRMENT (in unknown ranges during a specified period of time)

7

ΔQ s > 0

q

ΔT?

8

ΔQ s = 0

q

ΔT?

IMPROVEMENT (in specified ranges during an uncertain period of time) MAINTAINING (STABILIZATION) during an uncertain period of time

9

ΔQ s < 0

q

ΔT?

IMPAIRMENT (in specified ranges during an uncertain period of time)

10

ΔQ s > 0

q

ΔTs

11

ΔQ s = 0

q

ΔTs

12

ΔQ s < 0

q

ΔTs

MANAGEMENT (with improvement in specified ranges during a speci fied period of time) MANAGEMENT (with stability in specified ranges during a specified period of time) MANAGEMENT (with IMPAIRMENT in specified ranges during a specified period of time)

q

1

ΔQ ? > 0

2 3 4

q

q

q

misses the word object of management. It seems that object quality management would sound better. Methods for quality management were described in detail in monographs [27–29], manuals [30–33], and books that deal with practical experience in this com ponent of management [34–40]. What does this phrase mean in terms of qualimetry? Any management is meant to affect an object in order to transfer it to a desired state. Azgal’dov consid ers the concept quality management from this stand point. It is interesting that the interpretation of this concept has not varied with time even in its details. For example, in [7] the author introduces the following designations and concepts: t1 is the current moment; t2 is a future moment; ΔT is the time interval from moment t1 to moment t2: ΔT = t2 – t1; ΔTs is the specified time or the time interval that is specified by a manager in advance; ΔT? is an uncertain time or the time interval that is not specified by a manager in advance; he given object state is the object state at the given (initial) moment t1 when the quality characteristic q

value equals q 1 ;

The future object state is the state of an object at a certain moment t2(t2 – t1) when the actual quality q

characteristic value will become equal to q 2 ; The quality variation is the value that is found from q q the expression ΔQ q = q –q 1 ; q

The specified quality variation ΔQ s is the quality variation the value of which is specified by a manager in advance; q

The uncertain quality variation ΔQ ? is the quality variation whose values are not specified by a manager in advance. Azgal’dov classifies all processes that are related to object quality variation in the table (as, e.g., in [7, p.16]). Azgal’dov analyzes the content and results of pro cesses that are represented in the table for the cases when a manager does not use qualimetry. He made two mistakes in these cases [7, p. 17]. The first mistake is due to the fact that the value of an increase of the quality characteristic is determined incorrectly, i.e., the fact that the improvement of a characteristic of one of the properties by a% almost always leads to the improvement of the total quality characteristic only by b% (b < a).

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF QUALIMETRY

The second mistake lies in disregarding the follow ing thesis. The issue is that the improvement of a char acteristic of one of the properties of an object results in an improved total characteristic of its quality only if none of the remaining properties of this object impair their characteristics. However, this case is quite possi ble. Let us assume that the improvement of the life of a part by 30% is followed by an increase in its weight. This results in impairment of the characteristic of the object’s weight property by some amount. Only quali metric measurements make it possible to conclude whether an object’s quality was improved or impaired in this situation (and its percentage). Azgal’dov believes that only lines 10 and 11 in the table reflect the conditions that are required to provide quality management. Only line ten describes the con dition in which the quality management occurs, i.e., it is such an improvement in quality that is provided dur ing a specified period of time and within specified quantities. In [7, p. 15], we can find the following def inition: “an object’s quality management is the provi q sion of an object’s quality variation ΔQ s during a specified period of time ΔTs.” However, practice shows that quality management q according to line ten is hard to provide. A desired ΔQ s can easily be calculated. For this, an increment of absolute values of the characteristics of certain proper ties that are located at the upper level of the tree should be specified and then used in the calculations. However, it is q practically impossible to obtain ΔQ s during ΔTs. We will consider the interesting (unfortunately, very rare today) situation when a manager has qualimetric q q skills and is able to calculate q 1 and q 2 . We introduce the following concepts for similar situations. Timeregulated object quality management is the transfer of an object during a specified period of time q q ΔTs from the initial state with q 1 to the state with q 2 while providing the specified direction of variation in a quality characteristic (ΔQ (ΔQ > 0, ΔQ < 0, or ΔQ = 0). These are lines 4 and 6 of the table. Levelregulated object quality management is the transfer of an object during an uncertain period of time q q ΔT? from the initial state with q 1 to the state with q 2 while providing the specified variation in the quality q characteristic ΔQ s . These are lines 7, 8, and 9 of the table. Level or time regulated object quality manage ment is the transfer of an object during a specified q period of time ΔTs from the initial state with q 1 to the q

state with q 2 while providing the specified variation in q

the quality characteristic ΔQ s . These are lines 10, 11, and 12 of the table.

81

Level or timeunregulated object quality manage ment is the transfer of an object during an uncertain period of time ΔT? while providing a specified direc tion of the variation in a quality characteristic ΔQ (ΔQ > 0, ΔQ < 0, or ΔQ = 0). These are lines 1 and 3 of the table. The set of these definitions involves the intrinsic characteristic of quality management, i.e., all manag ing effects onto an object should be oriented in a spec ified direction of the variation in a quality characteris tic ΔQ (ΔQ > 0, ΔQ < 0, or ΔQ = 0). The desired definition can now be formulated based on the derived concepts. An object’s quality management is the set of actions q to transfer an object from the initial state q 1 to the q

state q 2 while providing the specified direction of the variation in the quality characteristic ΔQ (ΔQ > 0, ΔQ < q 0, or ΔQ = 0). In this case the value of q 2 can remain unspecified. Therefore, if a process that is characterized by the conditions from any line of the table, except for lines 2 and 5, is developed in a desired direction then this pro cess can validly be considered as an object’s quality management. The mode of variations in a quality characteristic that is described in lines 2 and 5 involves the uncertainty of these variations. Therefore, it does not satisfy the above definition. REFERENCES 1. Azgal’dov, G.G., Kostin, A.V., and Sadovov, V.V., Kvalimetriya: pervonachal’nye svedeniya (Qualimetry: Initial Information), Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 2010. 2. Determination of ‘Quality’ Conception. http://ru.wikipedia.org. 3. Azgal’dov, G.G., Kvalimetriya dlya menedzherov (Qual imetry for Managers), Moscow: Akademiya Ekonomiki i Prava, 1996. 4. Azgal’dov, G.G., Glichev, A.V., and Panov, V.P., Chto takoe kachestvo? (What Is Quality?), Moscow: Ekonomika, 1968. 5. Azgal’dov, G.G. and Raikhman, E.P., O kvalimetrii (About Qualimetry), Moscow: Izd. Standartov, 1973. 6. Azgal’dov, G.G., Kolichestvennaya otsenka kachestva produktsii  kvalimetriya (nekotorye aktual’nye prob lemy) (Quantitative Estimation of Production Quality– Qualimetry (Some Actual Problems), Moscow: Znanie, 1986. 7. Azgal’dov, G.G., Kostin, A.V., and Sadovov, V.V., Kvalimetriya dlya vsekh: uchebnoe posobie (Qualimetry for Everybody: A Tutorial), Moscow: ID InformZ nanie, 2012. 8. Lobanov, A.S., SystemThinking Manager, Nauchn. Tekhn. Inform. Ser. 1, 2009, No. 5, pp. 11–14. 9. Lobanov, A.S., Analysis and synthesis of information at enterprise restructurization, Nauchn.Tekhn. Inform. Ser. 1, 2010, No. 1, pp. 12–15.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013

82

LOBANOV

10. Dzhokhadze, D.V., Dialektika Aristotelya (Dialectics of Aristotle), Moscow: Nauka, 1971. 11. Zaichenko, G.A., Lokk (John Locke), Moscow: Mysl, 1973. 12. Taranov, P.S., Anatomiya mudrosti: 120 filosofov (Anat omy of the Wisdom: 120 Philosophers), Simferopol’: 1996, Vol. 1. 13. Meerovskii, B.V., Gobbs (Thomas Hobbes), Moscow: Mysl, 1975. 14. Sokolov, V.V., Spinoza (Baruch Spinoza), Moscow: Mysl, 1973. 15. Hegel, G.W.F., Entsiklopediya filosofskikh nauk. Tom 1. Entsiklopediya logiki (The Encyclopaedia of Philosoph ical Sciences. Part 1. The Encyclopaedia Logic, India napolis: Hackett, 1991; Moscow: Mysl’, 1974. 16. Dal’, V.I., Tolkovyi slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka (Explanatory Dictionary of Living Great Rus sian Language), St. Petersburg: Diamant, 1996. 17. Bol’shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya. Tom 11 (Large Soviet Encyclopaedia), Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklo pediya, 1973, vol. 11. 18. Taranov, P.S., Anatomiya mudrosti: 120 filosofov (Anat omy of the Wisdom: 120 Philosophers), Simferopol’: Tavriya, 1996, Vol. 2. 19. Azgal’dov, G.G., Potrebitel’naya stoimost' i ee izmerenie (Consumer Worth and Its Measurement), Moscow: Ekonomika, 1971. 20. Lobanov, A.S., Formulirovanie i analiz opredelenii pon yatii na primere menedzhmenta (Formulation and Anal ysis of the Conception Determination on the Example of Management), Nauchn. Tekhn. Inform. Ser. 1, 2009, No. 10, pp. 4–7. 21. Azgal’dov, G.G., Teoriya i praktika otsenki kachestva tovarov (osnovy kvalimetrii) (Theory and Practice of Article Quality Estimation (Foundations of Qualime try)), Moscow: Ekonomika, 1982. 22. Azgal’dov, G.G., Development of the Theoretical Foundations of Qualumetry, Doctoral (Econ.) Disserta tion, Moscow: Kuibyshev WarEngin. Acad., 1981. 23. GOST (State Standard) 1546779: Production Quality Management. Basic Conceptions. Terms and Determina tions, 1979. 24. Lobanov, A.S., Systemology: Basic Conceptions, Proc. Int. Forum on Information and Documentation, 1999, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 3–11. 25. Lobanov, A.S., Upravlenie kachestvom na osnove kvali metrii: uchebnik (Quality Management on the Basis of Qualimetry: A Textbook), Sochi: Lavina, 2007.

26. Lobanov, A.S., Upravlenie kachestvom: uchebnik (Qual ity Management: A Textbook), Moscow: MAKS Press, 2009. 27. Konoplev, S.P., Upravlenie kachestvom (Quality Man agement), Moscow: NITs InfraM, 2011. 28. Razumov, V.A., Upravlenie kachestvom (Quality Man agement), Moscow: INFRAM, 2011. 29. Rozhkov, V.N., Upravlenie kachestvom (Quality Man agement), Moscow: Forum, 2011. 30. Kane, M.M., Ivanov, B.V., Koreshkov, V.N., and Skhirtladze, A.G., Sistemy, metody i instrumenty mene dzhmenta kachestva: uchebnik dlya vuzov, (Systems, Methods and Tools of Quality Management), St. Petersburg: Piter, 2009. 31. Kirillov, V.I., Kvalimetriya i sistemnyi analiz: ucheb. posobie (Qualimetry and Systematical Analysis: A Tuto rial) 2nd ed., Moscow: NITs InfraM, 2011. 32. Kvalimetriya i sistemnyi analiz: ucheb. dlya vuzov (Qual ity Management: A Textbook for Higher Educational Institutes),Il’enkova, S.D., ed., Moscow: YuNITI DANA, 2003. 33. Okrepilov, V.V., Upravlenie kachestvom: uchebnik dlya VUZov (Quality Management: A Textbook for Higher Educational Institutes), Moscow: Ekonomika, 1998. 34. Smirnov, E.A., Upravlenie kachestvom reklamy (Adver tising Quality Management), Moscow: INFRAM, 2011. 35. Nixon, F., Managing to Achieve Quality and Reliability, McGrawHill, 1971; Moscow: Izd. Standartov, 1990. 36. Harrington, J., Upravlenie kachestvom v amerikanskikh korporatsiyakh (Quality Management in American Corporations), Moscow: Ekonomika, 1990. 37. Krylova, G.D., Zarubezhnyi opyt upravleniya kachestvom (Foreign Experience of Quality Manage ment), Moscow: Izd. Standartov, 1992. 38. Ishikawa, K., What is total quality control? The Japanese way, PrenticeHall, 1985; Moscow: Ekonomika, 1988. 39. Liker, J.K., The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer, McGrawHill, 2004; Moscow: Al’pina, 2010. 40. Kobayasi, I., 20 klyuchei k sovershenstvovaniyu biznesa. Prakticheskaya programma revolyutsionnykh preobrazo vanij na predpriyatii (20 Keys to Workplace. Improve ment. Practical Program for Revolution Transforma tions on Enterprise) Moscow: Standarty I Kachestvo, 2010.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Translated by I. Kekukh

Vol. 40

No. 2

2013