Due to various contexts and processes, forensic science communities may have different approaches, largely influenced by their criminal justice systems. However, forensic science practices share some common characteristics. One is the assurance of a high (scientific) quality within processes and practices. For most crime laboratory directors and forensic science associations, this issue is
conditioned by the triangle of quality, which represents the current paradigm of quality assurance in the field. It consists of the implementation of standardization, certification, accreditation, and an evaluation process. It constitutes a clear and sound way to exchange data between laboratories and enables databasing due to standardized methods ensuring reliable and valid results; but it is also a means of defining minimum requirements for practitioners' skills for specific forensic science activities. The control of each of these aspects offers non-forensic science partners the assurance that the entire process has been mastered and is trustworthy. Most of the standards focus on the analysis stage and do not consider pre- and post-laboratory stages, namely, the work achieved at the investigation scene and the evaluation and interpretation of the results, intended for intelligence beneficiaries or for court. Such localized consideration prevents forensic practitioners from identifying where the problems really lie with regard to criminal justice systems. According to a performance-management approach, scientific quality should not be restricted to standardized procedures and controls in forensic science practice. Ensuring high quality also strongly depends on the way a forensic science culture is assimilated (into specific education training and workplaces) and in the way practitioners understand forensic science as a whole.