Zen or the art of motorcycle maintenance

        The body of literature effectively cited or referred to, from
        within the data processing professional literature or Usenet
        newsgroups, is not very eclectic. Not providing any
        statistics, I would claim that few authors are mostly cited.
        Come to my mind Lewis Carroll; some well-established
        philosophers like Plato or Aristotle, including some oriental
        masters like Confucius or Lao-tse; a few science-fiction
        authors like Douglas Adams; a couple of scientists, possible
        sources for insightful analogies, the architect Christopher
        Alexander or the cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the
        physicist Stephen Hawking; and closer yet to computer science
        proper, some famous cognitive scientists: Herbert Simon,
        Marvin Minsky, Terry Winograd, Douglas Hofstadter...

        Among them, Robert Pirsig has had his share for over 20 years,
        for a book which is after all, mostly an autobiography. The
        topic I'd like to focus onto, which is indeed central in the
        book, is this of quality. I consider an interesting paradox
        the fact that despite the appeal the book exerts over computer
        scientists, Pirsig's thesis concerning quality contradicts so
        deeply the conception Software Quality Assurance experts build
        upon.


1. Transcendental quality

        In a paper on software quality [1], an author categorizes
        Pirsig's conception as "transcendental" and reproaches it its
        "lack of rigor", which he equates to a lack of objectivity
        ("intensely personal [...] experiences").

        The binding between scientific rigor and objectivity is quite
        traditional. It is nevertheless not immediate. Science as we
        understand it was born roughly with Descartes' rationalism and
        its reaction to the scholastic tradition. Rationalism was very
        much based on experience, and this one authorized by the
        Cogito. This revolution gave soon birth to empirism,
        personalized among others by Hume, which led Kant to formulate
        his "Critique of Pure Reason". This is covered by Pirsig
	(p 114 and following, until the end of chapter 11), and is a
        cornerstone of his conceptions: the meaning of the world is
        conditioned by our subjective experience.

        Now, Pirsig follows Kant in accepting a few a priori
        "pre-conceptual" categories, such as time and space, which
        allow us to build up our understanding. These categories are
        common to all human beings, and therefore "objective". This is
        what constitutes the foundation for an objective science.
        Although Pirsig doesn't explicitly state it as such, I
        understand that he considers quality as part of this
        pre-conceptual baggage:

          "What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word quality
          cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is
          not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is
          so simple, immediate and direct." (p 225)

        Quality being objective doesn't make it an object itself,
        which could be the source of sense data, and thus quantified,
        and measured. While this allows us to communicate our
        experiences, quality cannot itself be their object. We have a
        pre-conceptual, hence objective, notion of quality, not a
        conceptual one. A conceptual notion would be subjective:

          "It's quite a machine, this a priori motorcycle. If you stop
          to think about it long enough you'll see that it is the main
          thing. The sense data confirm it but the sense data aren't
          it." (p 118)

        The motorcycle can be measured, precisely because it is being
        conceptualized. Quality is not.

          "Quality is not a thing. It is an event.
          It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the
          object." (p 215)

        Approaches which in the name of objectivity attempt to get rid
        of subjects, are reductionist:

          "Caring about what you are doing is considered either
          unimportant or taken for granted." (p 25)

        Quality is the satisfaction with which one feels that one
        controls the world, that sense data confirm one's a priori
        understanding, and with which this understanding adapts to new
        sense data. Quality is the feeling of one's own fit into the
        world.


2. The shortcomings of classical quality

        The paper already cited went on (before loosing sight of any
        short term applicability in a statistical study of the many
        "dimensions" of software quality) reviewing classical
        approaches to flesh up quality with an objective structure.

        The four categories it came with were:
        - Product-based: a generative view, based on attributes of the
          products. 
        - User-based: relative to customer expectations and their
          satisfaction, measurable through market analysis.
        - Process-based: relying on metrics to assert the compliance
          of results with specifications.
        - Value-based: taking cost efficiency into account, and
          weighing according to marginal returns on investments.

        The mere fact that these approaches are all indeed reasonable
        casts a shadow of doubt over their goal to find out an
        objective criteria. The largest common factor they share is
        precisely their project to evacuate any "subject" from the
        evaluation (if only by melting it into statistical
        nothingness).

        All these attempts have been so far non conclusive, to the
        point that it is good to formulate once again the actual
        needs:
        - Predictability. This is needed in order to make investments,
          to affect resources.
        - Means of validation.
        - Efficiency.
        
        These are indeed aspects of a feeling of control, and thus
        naturally bind to quality as we saw earlier. The question of
        objectivity is not as clear, however. 
        Everybody is more after competitive advantages than after
        progresses of science. It is important to be convincing
        towards one's customers, not in front of the posterity. The
        birth of global markets could bring an answer, but it is still
        a marginal explanation.

        The issue, getting back to Pirsig's framework, is more one of
        subject: who should experience the quality? Be in control?
        This is the question: the requirement for an objective quality
        criteria comes from a social separation of tasks. Quality is
        sought for as an interface. What is expressly wanted is
        confidence without caring!

	Pirsig showed that this is a nonsense. Control over a process
        is only increased by getting involved. Delegation doesn't
        work. The conclusion is that the need for increased
        sophistication, especially in software, will require a
        modification of the social structures of production. The quest
        for objective definitions of quality is only a desperate move
        to preserve a status quo.

        This leaves us with a subsidiary question: is there an
        objective reality?

        The history of philosophy did not stop with Kant. The
        categories he claimed as pre-conceptual and objective have
        suffered a lot during the two last centuries: after Darwin,
        and even more after Einstein, our conception of time has
        changed significantly. In fact time and space cannot any more
        be considered distinct pre-conceptual categories for
        structuring the world. Heidegger came actually to the same
        conclusions, speaking of the "temporalization" of the Dasein.
        This purification of "existence" from any objective structure,
        and thus from any "essential" meaning, only confirms the
        contradiction there is in trying to make decisions, without
        involving one's responsibility.


Conclusion        

        Following Pirsig, I believe that one is misguided to look for
        objective assistance to decision making under the concept of
        quality. The issue is however -unfortunately?- not only one of
        terminology, but is symptomatic of a deeper problem with the
        classical conception of quality.


Appendix

        [1] "Dimensions of Software Quality", by Michael W. Usrey, in
        Quality Management Journal, Vol 3, Issue 3, pp 67-86,
        Milwaukee, WI: ASQC, July, 1996.

        [2] http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~twh/pirsig.html
         A web site, devoted to large quotes to the book, classified
        by topic.

        A query among Usenet postings in "Deja News", a database of
        Usenet postings,  found 44 matches,
        for the query: "zen motorcycle pirsig" between 97/02/08 and
        97/03/13 (motorcycle: 12435, pirsig: 339, zen: 9825).