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.BetterUnderstandingof Quality53Towards a BetterUnderstanding of QualityNeil Hardie and Paul WalshUniversity of Sydney, AustraliaThe Definitions of QualityThere are many different definitions of quality. Each definition has its owngroup of supporters, and various schools of quality have grown up aroundparticular versions. This has led to fragmentation and confusion in the field ofquality. This article is an attempt to show the relationships between differentdefinitions, 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 fromproduct deficiencies, which avoids customer dissatisfaction ? Juran[1].Quality?is the extent to which the customer or users believe the product or service surpassestheir needs and expectations ? Gitlow et al.[2].Quality: the totality of features and characteristics of a product that bear on its ability tosatisfy stated or implied needs ? International Standards Organization (ISO)[3].Good quality?means a predictable degree of uniformity and dependability at a low cost witha 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 ofthe 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 OxfordEnglish Dictionary[9].Definition of quality?a thing is said to have the positive attribute of conformance to specifiedstandards ? Shewhart[10, pp. 47-9, p. 262].Garvin[11] is one of the few authorities who have analysed the range of qualitydefinitions, 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 1992Revised March 1993International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management,Vol. 11 No. 4, 1994, pp. 53-63,? MCB University Press,0265-671XIJQRM11,454Quality as a Difference between StatesThe different definitions of quality given earlier are clearly related; but theyare not saying the same thing. Thus, it is possible for a product to meet aspecified requirement[8], but not satisfy the customer[1]. It is possible forsomething to be free from defects[1], but not be fit for purpose[3]. A servicemay 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 whatis meant by quality. Usually, meeting any one of these definitions implies thatthe supply is of suitable quality, but there are always situations where failureto meet the definition does not mean a failure of the supply quality. Forexample, a supply of a service or product may be of the highest standard, butthe customer may have unreasonable expectations, which cannot be met byany means at all.On the other hand, meeting a definition does not always mean that thesupply is of adequate quality; e.g. a requirement can never be defined insufficient detail to exclude all possibilities of an unsuitable supply, even whenthe specification has been fully met.There is considerable consensus, however, that quality is represented bya difference between two states. Shewhart[10] and Crosby[8, p. 49] proposethis; and the service quality analysis of Parasuruman et al.[12] is based onquality gaps between states. These states are usually how things ought to beand how things are. All the preceding definitions of quality can be expressedin terms of a comparison between these preferred and actual states. Thus, arequirement specification represents how it ought to be, and the differencefrom the actual performance ? how it is ? gives the degree of quality.Similarly, the customer expectation is how the purchaser thinks it ought tobe, and the comparison with what is received constitutes the qualityperception.Even the more broad-based definitions of Imai, Taguchi and the OxfordDictionary ? anything which can be improved, loss to society and degreeof excellence ? can be viewed in these terms. An improvement has to betowards some conceptually better state; and the highest Taguchi quality isachieved when the loss to society is zero, corresponding to some idealperformance.Elements of a TransactionA transaction may be defined as the interaction between parties with the aimof exchanging products and/or services.A transaction is the framework within which quality is created. It is thetransaction which brings a product with certain characteristics andcapabilities to a customer with certain needs and expectations.In order to obtain a better perspective of a transaction it is necessary to lookat the series of states involving the customer, the supplier, and the industryinvolved. All three of these are part of the process by which quality is defined,BetterUnderstandingof Quality55created and perceived. There are five key states which appear in anycompleted 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. Thereare different objectives and priorities within the organization, the situationwhich has generated the need is not completely known, and the effects ofany change are not totally predictable.The perceived requirement is an attempt to define the need in thissituation of uncertainty. The perceived requirement is normally created by thecustomer as a requirements specification, but it is sometimes the results ofmarket research by the supplier.The expected performance is the way in which the customer expectsthe supplier to meet the requirement. This depends on the knowledge, attitudeand sense of the customer. A customer may be unaware of the currentcapability of the technology or of the industry, and have very lowexpectations; in which case the expectations are easily satisfied. Orthe customer may have unreasonable ideas of what is possible, far beyondthe capacity of current techniques. In this case, the customer will alwaysbe dissatisfied. Ideally, the customer?s expectations should be based ona good understanding of the capability of current technology and theindustry.The actual performance is the true nature of the supplies ? the actualcapability of the supplies, and the actual performance of any services. Inpractice, the actual performance of each element is often not completelyknown or understood by either the supplier or the customer; each of themhave their own perceptions based on the knowledge and experience of thetransaction.The perceived performance is the understanding which the customerdevelops of how the supplies will perform. This is derived from informationprovided by the supplier, demonstrations, and from an understanding of thesupplier from previous experience. Any claims by the supplier will beinterpreted 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. Theperceived requirement is derived from the actual need by a process ofdefinition. The perceived requirement is converted into an actualperformance by a process of implementation. The expected performance isderived from the perceived requirement by the customer by a process ofIJQRM11,456anticipation. The perceived performance is established from the actualperformance by customer evaluation.The transaction quality model is defined in terms of these five key states andthe processes which link them.In Figure 1, blocks representing states are connected by arrows representingprocesses. The states are arranged in columns depending on their owner orcreator. The states are also arranged in the sequence in which they occur in atransaction, from top to bottom.Quality Relations in the Transaction ModelQuality was defined earlier in terms of a difference between two states. Havingidentified the key states of a transaction, it is now possible to define somequality relations between the states. Figure 2 shows the states and the differenttypes 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 actualperformance matches the perceived requirement.Perceivedrequirement(customer and/or supplier)Performanceperceived bycustomerPerformanceexpected bycustomerSupplier Product/serviceSequencePerspectiveActualperformanceActualneedCustomerDefinitionAnticipationEvaluationImplementationFigure 1.The Transaction Modelof Quality: States andProcessesBetterUnderstandingof Quality57Meeting or exceeding customer expectations needs to be divided into two parts.At the time of purchase, the customer decides if expectations have been met bycomparing the perceived performance with the expected performance.This usually forms the basis of a decision to purchase, and determinespurchase satisfaction. After the purchase of the supplies, the customerbecomes aware of the actual performance; and user satisfaction is the resultof comparing the actual performance with expected performance.It is obviously in the interests of both the customer and supplier to have aclose matching between needs, perceived requirement, actual performance,perceived performance and expectations. Any tool which helps to identify gapswill be useful, as the customer and supplier can then discuss and negotiateways of reducing them.Subprocesses in the Transaction ModelThe transactional processes given earlier are made up of a number ofsubsidiary processes. These need to be considered in order to analyse furtherquality relations. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the component processes ofPerceivedrequirement(customer and/orsupplier)Performanceperceived bycustomerPerformanceexpected bycustomerSupplier Product/serviceSequencePerspectiveActualperformanceActualneedCustomerFitness for usePurchase satisfactionUser satisfactionConformancetorequirementFigure 2.The TransactionQuality Model: QualityRelationsIJQRM11,458anticipation, implementation and evaluation. No significant subsidiaryprocesses have been identified at this stage for definition. This breakdowngives rise to a number of additional states, as shown in Table I.Perceivedrequirement(customer and/or supplier)Performanceexpected bycustomerIndustrytechnologycapabilityCustomer Supplier IndustrySequencePredict performancePerspectiveAssess feasibilityFigure 3.Subprocesses ofAnticipationPerceivedrequirement(supplier)??.CompanycapabilityDesignrequirementSupplier Product/serviceSequencePerspectiveTranslate requirementsActualperformanceSet up processesCarry out tasksFigure 4.Subprocesses ofImplementationBetterUnderstandingof Quality59Quality Relations for SubprocessesWhen these states are added to the model of Figure 2, a number of furtherquality relations may be identified. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show some of theseadditional quality relations. The new states created are shown in Table II.The model identifies some relationships which have not been addressed sofar, but which are nevertheless relations between states, and identify areaswhich affect overall quality. Some of these qualities apply directly to a specificprocess, but others apply to the outcome of two or more processes. Most of thesenew relations are self-explanatory, but three need clarification.ActualperformancePerformanceperceived bycustomerClaimedperformance(by supplier)Customer Supplier Product/serviceSequenceInterpretationof claimsPerspectiveMeasured/predictedperformanceUnderstandingof performancePresentation ofperformanceFigure 5.Sub processes ofEvaluationMain process Subprocess statesAnticipation Industry/technology capability(to meet the requirement)Implementation Design requirementCompany capabilityEvaluation Measured/predicted performanceClaimed performance (by supplier) Table I.Additional States fromSubprocessesIJQRM11,460The degree to which the relevant industry meets perceived needs of thecustomers, reflects the awareness, technology and dynamism of the industry ?and the relation between requirements and industry capability can be describedas industry quality (see Figure 6).In Figure 8, communication quality is the relationship between actualperformance and performance perceived by the customer ? in other words, howPerceivedrequirement(supplier)CompanycapabilityDesignrequirementSupplier Product/serviceSequencePerspectiveTranslation qualityActualperformanceOrganizational qualityOperationalqualityConformanceto specificationFigure 7.Quality Relations forSubprocesses ofImplementationPerceivedrequirement(customer and/or supplier)Performanceexpected bycustomerIndustry/technologycapabilityCustomer Supplier IndustrySequenceExpectation qualityPerspectiveIndustry qualityFigure 6.Quality Relations forSubprocesses ofAnticipationBetterUnderstandingof Quality61well 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 claimedperformance (usually with good cause!). This shows a failure of the relationshipof trust and honesty between the supplier and customer, and is therefore termedrelationship quality.The idea of a defect is difficult to define, but a reasonable one is that of anunexpected and unacceptable aspect of performance. If there is some expectedActualperformancePerformanceperceived bycustomerClaimedperformanceby supplierIndustry SupplierSequenceRelationshipqualityPerspectiveProduct/serviceMeasured/predictedperformanceMeasurementqualityDefectsCommunications qualityFigure 8.Quality Revelations ofSubprocesses ofEvaluationProcess Quality relationsAnticipation Industry qualityExpectation qualityImplementation Translation qualityOrganizational qualityOperational qualityConformance to specificationEvaluation Measurement qualityDefectsRelationship qualityCommunications qualityOther Requirement qualityProduct qualityTable II.Quality RelationsArising fromSubprocessesIJQRM11,462deficiency, then it is not really a defect. Thus a product which is advertised ashaving an MTBF of three hundred hours cannot be said to be defective if itfails three times in the first thousand hours. The essence of a defect is that itusually comes as a surprise to both supplier and customer. A defect maytherefore be defined as a difference between claimed performance and actualperformance.Requirement quality reflects how well the actual need has been converted intoa formal requirement which can be communicated to those implementing theprovision of the supplies.Product quality arises from a comparison between the actual productprovided and the alternative products which are available, or could be provided,by the particular industry.Uses of the ModelA good model must have some practical use. Four uses are seen for thetransaction quality model, in both its simple forms of Figure 1 and 2, and in itsmore detailed forms as reflected by Figure 3, 4 and 5. First, it enables thosediscussing quality to identify exactly what they are talking about; and wherethere are different preferred definitions of quality, it is possible for theparticipants in the debate to see the relationship and application of each other?sviews.Second, it identifies the various areas and stages which contribute to thepresence or absence of quality. It is clear from the model that the customer hasa major role to play in the creation of a quality product; unless the customer hasan accurate requirement, and reasonable expectations, the transaction will beineffective in some form. And unless the sales and marketing personnel of thesupplier can provide an accurate and honest description of the performance ofa 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 inthe transaction are aware of the quality relationships, they can analyse suchaspects as to whether the expectations were reasonable, whether therequirements quality was the source of the problem or whether the relationshipof trust between the customer and supplier needs to be addressed. Each form ofquality failure has its own symptoms, and it is possible to recognize the sourceor 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 thatof actual performance to claimed performance. Is the actual performancewell understood? If so, is it being properly communicated to the customer? Itmay be that investigation of actual performance indicates that the supplydoes not conform to the design specification, in which case this difference mustbe rectified.Fourth, the model aids in the correction of quality problems by indicatingwhat needs to be done. In each case, the gap between the two states forming therelevant quality relation must be closed. Thus, if the customer has discoveredthat a supply which meets requirements is not suitable for use, the supplierBetterUnderstandingof Quality63should work with the customer to improve the requirements quality by makingthe perceived requirement match more closely the actual need.SummaryThis article has proposed a general concept of quality as being a comparisonbetween a preferred and an actual state, and has developed from this acomprehensive model of quality which shows many of the commonly useddefinitions of quality as the relation between two particular states in atransaction. It has also introduced a number of new and illuminating qualityrelations which should aid the understanding of overall quality.It is believed that this model will help in the discussion of quality in all itsaspects by clarifying the meanings of quality, and by providing a frameworkfor the diagnosis and rectification of quality problems.References1. 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 theImprovement 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, Fall1984, pp. 25-43.12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale forMeasuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,Spring 1988, pp. 12-40.??.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]