Introduction
This chapter presents a concise introduction to key theories and people that have contributed significantly to the development of the concepts and practices of quality management in modern-day organisations.
Various definitions and notions of quality are presented and the development of quality management practice in modern-day organisations is briefly outlined. The contributions of key proponents, theorists and pioneers of quality management are concisely outlined. Finally, the principles and philosophy of Total Quality Management (TQM) are explored and the advantages and problematic issues associated with implementing TQM within a commercial context are identified.
Defining quality
âQualityâ is a word that is regularly applied and expressed within a great variety of contexts. In this modern-day commercial society, it is common to see advertisements that hold claims such as: âpremium qualityâ, âpurveyors of qualityâ, âwhere quality comes firstâ, âsuperior qualityâ, âonly the best quality materialsâ, âthe place where quality countsâ and so on.
It is difficult to contest that an association with the term âqualityâ offers anything other than positive connotations. To be readily associated and affiliated with âqualityâ and the notion of âqualityâ is an aspiration of many modern-day organisations. Whilst being closely associated with âqualityâ is entirely desirable to commercial organisations, establishing just what âqualityâ means and what the quest to âachieve qualityâ entails can be a matter open to some debate.
In a search for a definition of âqualityâ, Reeves and Bednar (1994) point out that
the definition of quality has yielded inconsistent results.⌠[R]egardless of the time period or context in which quality is examined, the concept has had multiple and often muddled definitions and has been used to describe a wide variety of phenomena. Continued inquiry and research about quality and quality related issues must be built upon a thorough understanding of differing definitions of the construct.
When considering âqualityâ as a term or concept it soon becomes apparent that it means many different things to many different people. There is quite clearly no one singular, universally accepted definition of âqualityâ. The idea or concept of âqualityâ is one that is multi-faceted. A survey of the âdefinitions of qualityâ highlights this and is presented in Table 1.1. This survey identifies a range of suggested definitions and alternatives that serve to assist understanding, use and articulation of the term âqualityâ within public and private sector organisations.
It is easy to identify from Table 1.1 that there is no one singular, universally accepted definition of âqualityâ. Indeed attempts to research and define quality within the commercial and organisational contexts of economics, manufacturing, the service industries and strategic and operations management have resulted in, as Garvin (1988) points out, a âhost of competing perspectives each based on a different analytical framework, and employing its own terminologyâ.
Whilst it can be recognised that definitions of quality are differing, they are not necessarily conflicting or contradictory. Rather, the diversity of definitions underlines the fact that quality is viewed in various ways. This diversity of views and definitions can be problematic, though â it can result in confused understanding, articulation and application of the quality concept within public and private sector organisations.
Classification of both the perspectives from which quality is viewed and the differing definitions of quality serves to clarify understanding regarding the quality concept. Such classification also serves to underpin and inform both communication and quality management practice. The following section offers an attempt at classifying quality definitions and serves to provide some meaning and structure to the diverse variety of quality definitions.
Table 1.1 Definitions of quality
| Definition of quality â a thing is said to have the positive attribute of conformance to specified standards | Shewhart (1931) |
|
| Quality is a customer determination which is based on the customerâs actual experience with the product or service, measured against his or her requirements â stated or unstated, conscious or merely sensed, technically operational or entirely subjective and always representing a moving target in a competitive market Conformance to requirements | Feigenbaum (1961) |
|
|
|
|
| Crosby (1979) |
| Quality is (1) product performance which results in customer satisfaction (2) freedom from product deficiencies, which avoids customer dissatisfaction | Juran (1988) |
|
|
| Quality: the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to meet a stated or implied need | ISO 8402-1986, âQuality Vocabularyâ |
| Quality is anything which can be improved | Masaaki (1986) |
| Quality is the loss a product causes to society after being shipped | Taguchi (1986) |
| Quality is the total composite product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering, manufacture and maintenance through which the product in use will meet the expectations of the customer | Feigenbaum (1951) |
|
|
| Good quality means a predictable degree of uniformity and dependability at a low cost with a quality suited to the market | Deming (1986) |
|
| Fitness for use | Juran (1988) |
| Quality is the extent to which the customer or users believe the product or service surpasses their needs and expectations | Gitlow et al. (1989) |
|
Classifying the ways of looking at quality
The quality of a product or service can be viewed in purely objective or subjective terms, or in a manner that utilises both objective and subjective evaluation together. Table 1.2 illustrates the classification of objective and subjective ways of viewing quality.
A research study undertaken by David Garvin (1986) drew upon surveys of âfirst-line supervisorsâ in the USA and Japan and compared practices and attitudes concerning quality. Within this study Garvin identifies five distinct classifications for quality definitions. These five classifications are identified and expanded within Table 1.3.
Further to these classifications Figure 1.1 illustrates Zhangâs (2001) âmap of quality perspectivesâ. This brings together Garvinâs five classifications of quality definitions and the objective and subjective measurement of quality. In Figure 1.1 Zhang considers each of Garvinâs five quality definition classifications in terms of:
- the extent of the objective-subjective determination of each classification of quality definition; and
- the location of where each quality definition classification is determined (internal or external to and organisation).
Table 1.2 Objective and subjective classifications of quality
| Objective quality | Subjective quality |
|
| Here the concept of quality is grounded within the precept that the characteristics of a product or service are tangibly measurable and assessable in absolute terms such as size, design conformance, durability and performance. | Here the concept of quality is grounded in the perceived ability of a product or service to satisfy various needs and aspirations. Here each individualâs perceptions can vary regarding the very same product or service. |
Table 1.3 Garvinâs five classifications of quality definitions
| 1 | Transcendental definition of quality | Quality is viewed from a perspective ofâabstract propertiesâ, evaluated with innate knowledge gained from experience. In other words, âI can tell quality when I see itâ. Within this context, the determination of quality is subjective and is based upon âthe view of an individualâ, this view being developed with experience. |
| 2 | Productâbased definition of quality | Quality is viewed from a perspective ofâdesired attributesâ. In this context, the prescribed features of a product, including its performance, serve to define its quality. |
| 3 | Userâbased definition of quality | Quality is viewed from a perspective ofâclient/customer satisfactionâ. In other words, quality relates to the extent to which client/customer needs and wants are satisfied by the âfitness for purposeâ of the serv... |