Lecture 2

TOPIC TWO: QUALITY CONCEPTS

EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of this chapter the student should be able:

 Explain Dimensions of quality

 Explain correlate of quality
 Differentiate between TQM and traditional management
 Explain Service quality

2.1 DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY

Eight dimensions of product quality management can be used at a

strategic level to analyze quality characteristics. The concept was defined
by David Garvin. Some of the dimensions are mutually reinforcing,
whereas others are not—improvement in one may be at the expense of
others. Understanding the trade-offs desired by customers among these
dimensions can help build a competitive advantage. Garvin's eight
dimensions can be summarized as follows:

i) Performance

Performance refers to a product's primary operating characteristics. This

dimension of quality involves measurable attributes, so brands can usually
be ranked objectively on individual aspects of performance. Overall
performance rankings, however, are more difficult to develop, especially
when they involve benefits that not every consumer needs. Performance
is often a source of contention between customers and suppliers,
particularly when deliverables are not adequately defined within
specifications. The performance of a product often influences the
profitability or reputation of the end-user. As such, many contracts or
specifications include damages related to inadequate performance. The
question of whether performance differences are quality differences may
depend on circumstantial preferences-but preferences based on functional
requirements, not taste. Some performance standards are based on
subjective preferences, but the preferences are so universal that they
have the force of an objective standard.

ii) Features

Features are additional characteristics that enhance the appeal of the

product or service to the user.

Similar thinking can be applied to features, a second dimensions of quality

that is often a secondary aspects of performance. Features are the "bells
and whistles" of products and services, those characteristics that
supplement their basic functioning. Examples include free drinks on a
plane, permanent-press cycles on a washing machine, and automatic
tuners on a color television set. The line separating primary performance
characteristics from secondary features is often difficult to draw. [2]

iii) Reliability

Reliability is the likelihood that a product will not fail within a specific time
period. This is a key element for users who need the product to work
without fail.

This dimension reflects the probability of a product malfunctioning or

failing within a specified time period. Among the most common measures
of reliability are the mean time to first failure, the mean time between
failures, and the failure rate per unit time. Because these measures
require a product to be in use for a specified period, they are more
relevant to durable goods than to products and services that are
consumed instantly.

Reliability normally becomes more important to consumers as downtime

and maintenance become more expensive. Farmers, for example, are
especially sensitive to downtime during the short harvest season. Reliable
equipment can mean the difference between a good year and spoiled
crops. But consumers on other markets are more attuned than ever to
product reliability too. Computers and copying machines certainly
compare on this basis.

Reliability may be closely related to performance. For instance, a product

specification may define parameters for up-time, or acceptable failure
rates. Reliability is a major contributor to brand or company image, and is
considered a fundamental dimension of quality by most end-users. I.E.,
recent market research shows that, especially for women, reliability has
become an automobile's most desired attribute.

iv) Conformance

The outcome of two example processes to show the meaning of the two
approaches to conformance

The dimension of conformance depicts to what extent a product’s design

and operating characteristics meet established standards. This dimension
owes the most to the traditional approaches to quality pioneered by
experts like Juran.

All products and services involve specifications of some sort. When

products are developed, these specifications are set and a target is set,
for instance the materials used or the dimension of the product. Not only
the target but also the tolerance (the range of permitted deviation from
the target) is defined. One problem with this approach is that there is little
interest in whether the specifications have been met exactly as long as
the tolerance limits are met.

On the one hand, this can lead to the so-called “tolerance stack-up”.
When two or more parts are to be fit together, the size of their tolerances
often determine how well they will match. Should one part fall at a lower
limit of its specification and a matching part at its upper limit, a tight fit is
unlikely. The link is likely to wear more quickly than one made from parts
whose dimensions have been centered more exactly.

This problem can be addressed by taking a different approach to

measuring quality. Instead of measuring a simple conformance to
specifications, the degree to which parts or products diverge from the
ideal target is measured. Using this approach, process 1 (see picture) is
better even though some items fall beyond specification limits. The
traditional approach would have favoured process 2 because it produces
more items within the specification limit. It was demonstrated that the
problem of “tolerance stack-up” is worse when the dimensions of parts
are more distant from the target than when they cluster around it, even if
some parts fall outside the tolerance. This approach requires a fresh look
at the common process quality factor of 'defect rate', to take into account
the fact that two parts may each pass the 'tolerance test' separately but
be unusable when the attempt is made to join them together.

In service businesses, measures of conformance normally focus on

accuracy and timeliness and include counts of processing errors,
unanticipated delays and other frequent mistakes. [2]

v) Durability

Durability measures the length of a product’s life. When the product can
be repaired, estimating durability is more complicated. The item will be
used until it is no longer economical to operate it. This happens when the
repair rate and the associated costs increase significantly. Technically,
durability can be defined as the amount of use one gets from a product
before it deteriorates. After so many hours of use, the filament of a light
bulb burns up and the bulb must be replaced. Repair is impossible.
Economists call such products "one-hoss shays" [4] (Oliver Wendel Holmes
poem).

In other cases, consumers must weigh the expected cost, in both dollars
and personal inconvenience, of future repairs against the investment and
operating expenses of a newer, more reliable model. Durability, then, may
be defined as the amount of use one gets from a product before it breaks
down and replacement is preferable to continued repair.

This approach to durability has two important implications. First, it

suggests that durability and reliability are closely linked. A product that
often fails is likely to be scrapped earlier than one that is more reliable;
repair costs will be correspondingly higher and the purchase of a
competitive brand will look that much more desirable. Second, this
approach implies that durability figures should be interpreted with care.
An increase in product life may not be the result of technical
improvements or the use of longer-lived materials. Rather, the underlying
economic environment simply may have changed.

vi) Serviceability

Serviceability involves the consumer's ease of obtaining repair service

(example: access to service centers and/or ease of self-service), the
responsiveness of service personnel(example: ease of getting an
appointment, willingness of repair personnel to listen to the customer),
and the reliability of service (example: whether the service is performed
right the first time). Competence and ease of repair is the speed with
which the product can be put into service when it breaks down, as well as
the competence and the behavior of the service personnel.
Consumers are concerned not only about a product breaking down but
also about the time before service is restored, the timeliness with which
service appointment are kept, the nature of dealings with service
personnel, and the frequency with which service calls or repairs fail to
correct outstanding problems. In those cases where problems are not
immediately resolved and complaints are filed, a company's complaint
handling procedures are also likely to affect customer's ultimate
evaluation of product and service quality.

Some of these variables reflect differing personal standards of acceptable

service. others can be measured quite objectively. Customers may remain
dissatisfied even after completion of repairs. How these complaints are
handled is important to a company's reputation for quality and service.
Eventually, profitability is likely to be affected as well. Companies differ
widely in their approaches to complaint handling and in the importance
they attach to this element of serviceability. Some do their best to resolve
complaints; others use legal gimmicks, the silent treatment and similar
ploys to rebuff dissatisfied customers.

For example recently, General Electric, Procter & Gamble and other
companies have sought to preempt consumer dissatisfaction by installing
toll-free telephone hot lines to their customer relations departments.

Important attributes for serviceability dimension are: service warranty,

parts warranty, parts availability, number of reasonable distance to dealer
service centers, distance to service parts center-dealer, distance to
service parts center individual, length of wait for service appointment,
schedule of preventive maintenance, employees listen to customers,
information regarding repairs, courteous service centers, repaired
correctly first time, service time relative to other dealers, warranty claims
handled without argument, average repair cost/year, extended warranty,
underestimation of service cost and provision of loan car.

vii) Aesthetics
The aesthetic properties of a product contribute to a company's or brand's
identity. Faults or defects in a product that diminish its aesthetic
properties, even those that do not reduce or alter other dimensions of
quality, are often cause for rejection. Aesthetics refers to how the product
looks, feels, sounds, tastes or smells. It is clearly a matter of personal
judgment and a reflection of individual preference. Nevertheless, there
appear to be some patterns in consumers' rankings of products on the
basis of taste. A recent study of quality in 33 food categories, for example,
found that high quality was most often associated with "rich and full
flavor, tastes natural, tastes fresh, good aroma ,and looks appetizing".
Aesthetics also refers to the "outside" feel of the product. The aesthetics
dimension differs from subjective criteria pertaining to "performance" in
that aesthetic choices are not nearly universal. Not all people prefer "rich
and full" flavor or even agree on what that means. Companies therefore
have to search for a niche. On this dimension of quality, it is impossible to
please everyone.

viii) Perceived Quality

Perception is not always reality.

Consumers do not always have complete information about a product's or

service's attributes; indirect measures may be their only basis for
comparing brands.

A product's durability for example, can seldom be observed directly; it

usually must be inferred from various tangible and intangible aspects of
the product. In such circumstances, images, advertising and brand names
-inferences about quality rather than the reality itself- can be critical. For
this reason, both Honda -which makes cars in Marysville, Ohio- and Sony -
which builds color televisions in San Diego- have been reluctant to
publicize that their products are "made in America".

Reputation is the primary stuff of perceived quality. Its power comes from
an unstated analogy: that the quality of products today is similar to the
quality of products of yesterday, or the quality of goods in a new product
line is similar to the quality of a company's established products.