Quality Management

Quality Management
Course based on Quality Management. An article as PDF will be attached and a separate template will be attached that needs to be filled in. The only source required is the article.

Better
Understanding
of Quality
53
Towards a Better
Understanding of Quality
Neil Hardie and Paul Walsh
University of Sydney, Australia
The Definitions of Quality
There are many different definitions of quality. Each definition has its own
group of supporters, and various schools of quality have grown up around
particular versions. This has led to fragmentation and confusion in the field of
quality. This article is an attempt to show the relationships between different
definitions, and to help understand the concepts involved in them.
Some typical definitions of quality are:
Quality is (1) product performance which results in customer satisfaction (2) freedom from
product deficiencies, which avoids customer dissatisfaction – Juran[1].
Quality…is the extent to which the customer or users believe the product or service surpasses
their needs and expectations – Gitlow et al.[2].
Quality: the totality of features and characteristics of a product that bear on its ability to
satisfy stated or implied needs – International Standards Organization (ISO)[3].
Good quality…means a predictable degree of uniformity and dependability at a low cost with
a quality suited to the market – Deming[4].
(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[5].
Quality is anything which can be improved – Imai[6].
Quality is the loss a product causes to society after being shipped – Taguchi[7].
We must define quality as “conformance to requirement” – Crosby[8, p. 17].
[Quality is] the degree or grade of excellence etc. possessed by a thing – Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary[9].
Definition of quality…a thing is said to have the positive attribute of conformance to specified
standards – Shewhart[10, pp. 47-9, p. 262].
Garvin[11] is one of the few authorities who have analysed the range of quality
definitions, classifying them into five groups:
l transcendental: excellence, the highest standard;
l product-based: dependent on the attributes;
l user-based: satisfying the wants of a customer, fitness for use;
l manufacturing-based: conformance to requirements;
l value-based: value for money.
Received November 1992
Revised March 1993
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, 1994, pp. 53-63,
© MCB University Press,
0265-671X
IJQRM
11,4
54
Quality as a Difference between States
The different definitions of “quality” given earlier are clearly related; but they
are not saying the same thing. Thus, it is possible for a product to meet a
specified requirement[8], but not satisfy the customer[1]. It is possible for
something to be free from defects[1], but not be fit for purpose[3]. A service
may be of superior performance[2], but not conforming to the specification[
10].
It is also clear that none of these definitions is a complete statement of what
is meant by quality. Usually, meeting any one of these definitions implies that
the supply is of suitable quality, but there are always situations where failure
to meet the definition does not mean a failure of the supply quality. For
example, a supply of a service or product may be of the highest standard, but
the customer may have unreasonable expectations, which cannot be met by
any means at all.
On the other hand, meeting a definition does not always mean that the
supply is of adequate quality; e.g. a requirement can never be defined in
sufficient detail to exclude all possibilities of an unsuitable supply, even when
the specification has been fully met.
There is considerable consensus, however, that “quality” is represented by
a difference between two states. Shewhart[10] and Crosby[8, p. 49] propose
this; and the service quality analysis of Parasuruman et al.[12] is based on
“quality gaps” between states. These states are usually how things ought to be
and how things are. All the preceding definitions of quality can be expressed
in terms of a comparison between these preferred and actual states. Thus, a
requirement specification represents “how it ought to be”, and the difference
from the actual performance – “how it is” – gives the degree of quality.
Similarly, the customer expectation is “how the purchaser thinks it ought to
be”, and the comparison with what is received constitutes the quality
perception.
Even the more broad-based definitions of Imai, Taguchi and the Oxford
Dictionary – “anything which can be improved”, “loss to society” and “degree
of excellence” – can be viewed in these terms. An improvement has to be
towards some conceptually better state; and the highest Taguchi quality is
achieved when the loss to society is zero, corresponding to some ideal
performance.
Elements of a Transaction
A transaction may be defined as the interaction between parties with the aim
of exchanging products and/or services.
A transaction is the framework within which quality is created. It is the
transaction which brings a product with certain characteristics and
capabilities to a customer with certain needs and expectations.
In order to obtain a better perspective of a transaction it is necessary to look
at the series of “states” involving the customer, the supplier, and the industry
involved. All three of these are part of the process by which quality is defined,
Better
Understanding
of Quality
55
created and perceived. There are five “key states” which appear in any
completed transaction:
(1) The actual need of the customer organization.
(2) The perceived requirement to meet the need.
(3) The expected performance by the customer of the supplies.
(4) The actual performance of the supplies.
(5) The perceived performance of the supplies by the customer.
The “actual need” is rarely fully known or understood by the customer. There
are different objectives and priorities within the organization, the situation
which has generated the “need” is not completely known, and the effects of
any change are not totally predictable.
The “perceived requirement” is an attempt to define the “need” in this
situation of uncertainty. The perceived requirement is normally created by the
customer as a requirements specification, but it is sometimes the results of
market research by the supplier.
The “expected performance” is the way in which the customer expects
the supplier to meet the requirement. This depends on the knowledge, attitude
and sense of the customer. A customer may be unaware of the current
capability of the technology or of the industry, and have very low
expectations; in which case the expectations are easily satisfied. Or
the customer may have unreasonable ideas of what is possible, far beyond
the capacity of current techniques. In this case, the customer will always
be dissatisfied. Ideally, the customer’s expectations should be based on
a good understanding of the capability of current technology and the
industry.
The “actual performance” is the true nature of the supplies – the actual
capability of the supplies, and the actual performance of any services. In
practice, the “actual performance” of each element is often not completely
known or understood by either the supplier or the customer; each of them
have their own perceptions based on the knowledge and experience of the
transaction.
The “perceived performance” is the understanding which the customer
develops of how the supplies will perform. This is derived from information
provided by the supplier, demonstrations, and from an understanding of the
supplier from previous experience. Any claims by the supplier will be
interpreted by the customer in the light of the trust held by the customer.
The five key states are related by processes, as shown in Figure 1. The
“perceived requirement” is derived from the “actual need” by a process of
definition. The “perceived requirement” is converted into an “actual
performance” by a process of implementation. The “expected performance” is
derived from the “perceived requirement” by the customer by a process of
IJQRM
11,4
56
anticipation. The “perceived performance” is established from the “actual
performance” by customer evaluation.
The transaction quality model is defined in terms of these five key states and
the processes which link them.
In Figure 1, blocks representing states are connected by arrows representing
processes. The states are arranged in columns depending on their owner or
creator. The states are also arranged in the sequence in which they occur in a
transaction, from top to bottom.
Quality Relations in the Transaction Model
Quality was defined earlier in terms of a difference between two states. Having
identified the key states of a transaction, it is now possible to define some
quality relations between the states. Figure 2 shows the states and the different
types of quality which arise from comparisons between them.
Fitness for use is how well the “actual performance” meets the “actual need”.
Conformance to requirements is defined by the degree to which the “actual
performance” matches the “perceived requirement”.
Perceived
requirement
(customer and/
or supplier)
Performance
perceived by
customer
Performance
expected by
customer
Supplier Product/service
Sequence
Perspective
Actual
performance
Actual
need
Customer
Definition
Anticipation
Evaluation
Implementation
Figure 1.
The Transaction Model
of Quality: States and
Processes
Better
Understanding
of Quality
57
Meeting or exceeding customer expectations needs to be divided into two parts.
At the time of purchase, the customer decides if expectations have been met by
comparing the “perceived performance” with the “expected performance”.
This usually forms the basis of a decision to purchase, and determines
purchase satisfaction. After the purchase of the supplies, the customer
becomes aware of the “actual performance”; and user satisfaction is the result
of comparing the “actual performance” with “expected performance”.
It is obviously in the interests of both the customer and supplier to have a
close matching between needs, perceived requirement, actual performance,
perceived performance and expectations. Any tool which helps to identify gaps
will be useful, as the customer and supplier can then discuss and negotiate
ways of reducing them.
Subprocesses in the Transaction Model
The transactional processes given earlier are made up of a number of
subsidiary processes. These need to be considered in order to analyse further
quality relations. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the component processes of
Perceived
requirement
(customer and/or
supplier)
Performance
perceived by
customer
Performance
expected by
customer
Supplier Product/service
Sequence
Perspective
Actual
performance
Actual
need
Customer
Fitness for use
Purchase satisfaction
User satisfaction
Conformance
to
requirement
Figure 2.
The Transaction
Quality Model: Quality
Relations
IJQRM
11,4
58
anticipation, implementation and evaluation. No significant subsidiary
processes have been identified at this stage for “definition”. This breakdown
gives rise to a number of additional “states”, as shown in Table I.
Perceived
requirement
(customer and/
or supplier)
Performance
expected by
customer
Industry
technology
capability
Customer Supplier Industry
Sequence
Predict performance
Perspective
Assess feasibility
Figure 3.
Subprocesses of
Anticipation
Perceived
requirement
(supplier)
Company
capability
Design
requirement
Supplier Product/service
Sequence
Perspective
Translate requirements
Actual
performance
Set up processes
Carry out tasks
Figure 4.
Subprocesses of
Implementation
Better
Understanding
of Quality
59
Quality Relations for Subprocesses
When these states are added to the model of Figure 2, a number of further
quality relations may be identified. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show some of these
additional quality relations. The new states created are shown in Table II.
The model identifies some relationships which have not been addressed so
far, but which are nevertheless relations between states, and identify areas
which affect overall quality. Some of these qualities apply directly to a specific
process, but others apply to the outcome of two or more processes. Most of these
new relations are self-explanatory, but three need clarification.
Actual
performance
Performance
perceived by
customer
Claimed
performance
(by supplier)
Customer Supplier Product/service
Sequence
Interpretation
of claims
Perspective
Measured/
predicted
performance
Understanding
of performance
Presentation of
performance
Figure 5.
Sub processes of
Evaluation
Main process Subprocess states
Anticipation Industry/technology capability
(to meet the requirement)
Implementation Design requirement
Company capability
Evaluation Measured/predicted performance
Claimed performance (by supplier) Table I.
Additional States from
Subprocesses
IJQRM
11,4
60
The degree to which the relevant industry meets perceived needs of the
customers, reflects the awareness, technology and dynamism of the industry –
and the relation between requirements and industry capability can be described
as industry quality (see Figure 6).
In Figure 8, communication quality is the relationship between actual
performance and performance perceived by the customer – in other words, how
Perceived
requirement
(supplier)
Company
capability
Design
requirement
Supplier Product/service
Sequence
Perspective
Translation quality
Actual
performance
Organizational quality
Operational
quality
Conformance
to specification
Figure 7.
Quality Relations for
Subprocesses of
Implementation
Perceived
requirement
(customer and/
or supplier)
Performance
expected by
customer
Industry/
technology
capability
Customer Supplier Industry
Sequence
Expectation quality
Perspective
Industry quality
Figure 6.
Quality Relations for
Subprocesses of
Anticipation
Better
Understanding
of Quality
61
well the supplier has reflected the true capability of its supply to the customer.
Often the failure in this regard is due to the customer not believing the claimed
performance (usually with good cause!). This shows a failure of the relationship
of trust and honesty between the supplier and customer, and is therefore termed
relationship quality.
The idea of a “defect” is difficult to define, but a reasonable one is that of “an
unexpected and unacceptable aspect of performance”. If there is some expected
Actual
performance
Performance
perceived by
customer
Claimed
performance
by supplier
Industry Supplier
Sequence
Relationship
quality
Perspective
Product/service
Measured/
predicted
performance
Measurement
quality
Defects
Communications quality
Figure 8.
Quality Revelations of
Subprocesses of
Evaluation
Process Quality relations
Anticipation Industry quality
Expectation quality
Implementation Translation quality
Organizational quality
Operational quality
Conformance to specification
Evaluation Measurement quality
Defects
Relationship quality
Communications quality
Other Requirement quality
Product quality
Table II.
Quality Relations
Arising from
Subprocesses
IJQRM
11,4
62
deficiency, then it is not really a defect. Thus a product which is advertised as
having an MTBF of three hundred hours cannot be said to be “defective” if it
fails three times in the first thousand hours. The essence of a defect is that it
usually comes as a surprise to both supplier and customer. A defect may
therefore be defined as a difference between “claimed performance” and “actual
performance”.
Requirement quality reflects how well the actual need has been converted into
a formal requirement which can be communicated to those implementing the
provision of the supplies.
Product quality arises from a comparison between the actual product
provided and the alternative products which are available, or could be provided,
by the particular industry.
Uses of the Model
A good model must have some practical use. Four uses are seen for the
transaction quality model, in both its simple forms of Figure 1 and 2, and in its
more detailed forms as reflected by Figure 3, 4 and 5. First, it enables those
discussing quality to identify exactly what they are talking about; and where
there are different preferred definitions of quality, it is possible for the
participants in the debate to see the relationship and application of each other’s
views.
Second, it identifies the various areas and stages which contribute to the
presence or absence of quality. It is clear from the model that the customer has
a major role to play in the creation of a quality product; unless the customer has
an accurate requirement, and reasonable expectations, the transaction will be
ineffective in some form. And unless the sales and marketing personnel of the
supplier can provide an accurate and honest description of the performance of
a product, it will lead to poor quality in a number of relationships.
Third, the model helps in the diagnosis of poor quality. Once the partners in
the transaction are aware of the quality relationships, they can analyse such
aspects as to whether the expectations were reasonable, whether the
requirements quality was the source of the problem or whether the relationship
of trust between the customer and supplier needs to be addressed. Each form of
quality failure has its own symptoms, and it is possible to recognize the source
or sources of poor quality by an examination of such symptoms. For example,
if a large number of defects are reported, the first relationship to examine is that
of “actual performance” to “claimed performance”. Is the actual performance
well understood? If so, is it being properly communicated to the customer? It
may be that investigation of “actual performance” indicates that the supply
does not conform to the design specification, in which case this difference must
be rectified.
Fourth, the model aids in the correction of quality problems by indicating
what needs to be done. In each case, the gap between the two states forming the
relevant quality relation must be closed. Thus, if the customer has discovered
that a supply which meets requirements is not suitable for use, the supplier
Better
Understanding
of Quality
63
should work with the customer to improve the requirements quality by making
the “perceived requirement” match more closely the “actual need”.
Summary
This article has proposed a general concept of quality as being a comparison
between a preferred and an actual state, and has developed from this a
comprehensive model of quality which shows many of the commonly used
definitions of quality as the relation between two particular states in a
transaction. It has also introduced a number of new and illuminating “quality
relations” which should aid the understanding of overall quality.
It is believed that this model will help in the discussion of quality in all its
aspects by clarifying the meanings of quality, and by providing a framework
for the diagnosis and rectification of quality problems.
References
1. Juran, J.M., Juran on Planning for Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1985, p. 5.
2. Gitlow, H., Gitlow, S., Oppenheim, H. and Oppenheim, R., Tools and Methods for the
Improvement of Quality, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1989.
3. International Standards Organization: ISO 8402-1986, “Quality Vocabulary”.
4. Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 176.
5. Feigenbaum, A.V., Total Quality Control, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1986.
6. Imai, M., Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1986, p. xxiii.
7. Taguchi, G., Introduction to Quality Engineering, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo,
1986, p. 1.
8. Crosby, P., Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.
9. Onions, C.T., The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975, p. 1724.
10. Shewhart, W.A., Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, van Nostrand,
New York, NY, 1931.
11. Garvin, D.A., “What Does Product Quality Really Mean?”, Sloan Management Review, Fall
1984, pp. 25-43.
12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
Spring 1988, pp. 12-40.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂