What makes quality fundamentally human?
How should the discipline distinguish universal human capability from its specialised professional expressions?
Offer a perspective →Questions before answers
The questions currently shaping the Human-Centred Quality body of knowledge. Their status will change as evidence, experience and contribution deepen understanding.
Why publish questions?
These questions are not a backlog to be cleared. They are spaces for inquiry. Some will become publications, patterns, capability guidance or practical experiments.
How should the discipline distinguish universal human capability from its specialised professional expressions?
Offer a perspective →Evidence is never complete. How should context, uncertainty and consequence influence sufficiency?
Offer a perspective →We are collecting examples where apparently positive measures concealed risk, misunderstanding or poor outcomes.
Offer a perspective →What depth of AI capability is appropriate for analysts, leads, architects and managers without forcing one career path upon all?
Offer a perspective →Where should responsibility remain explicitly human even as machine analysis becomes more capable?
Offer a perspective →How should quality reporting move from describing activity towards influencing measurable change?
Offer a perspective →How can journey-level and systems thinking reveal risk that individual severity classifications conceal?
Offer a perspective →How do multiple professions share responsibility without creating ambiguity, territoriality or gaps?
Offer a perspective →How might TMMi, CMMI, ISTQB, ISO, ITIL and related bodies of knowledge inform - but not constrain - a human-centred capability model?
Offer a perspective →A useful question exposes an assumption, a tension or a gap in understanding. It need not arrive with an answer.