ABSTRACT
In view of this, it is surprising that many bodies, practitioners, management consultants and writers on quality costs appear to be reluctant to get to grips with the problem of definitions per se. A number of definitions of quality-related costs are couched in fairly specious terms. Many writers have avoided the issue alto gether, though some have at least faced up to it before neatly side-stepping it Some cost collectors and writers state or imply their definitions of quality-related costs. In other cases it is evident from the text tables and figures and/or discus sions that the cost collector’s view of what constitutes a quality-related cost is at odds with commonly accepted views. But despite obvious differences in interpre tation, definitions of what constitutes quality costs are not discussed. Accountants are similarly not very forthcoming with definitions of costs which make clear how, for example, overheads should be dealt with or how scrap should be costed, and this adds to the problem. Admittedly there are difficulties in preparing unambiguous acceptable definitions and it is understandable that most people avoid the issue.
