ME .0" ,~~~~ 4g , i
o..tf
.I
,,'\~~ ii'a X44 ; '
..
-. ,i
..,..
f - - I
I I
-:-, f-
_ a -- -i
i I
.;Z<l-1 I- I
I
I I
I II
I
-- I- -
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .;Xt0
.d
.0;.
.. ... ... I I
..,x='.......
....
.................
,......
.. #.:
'
' :' :......
-S.. ...
-1
-N
T -
7-. w > i
N-
-g t IF I-E I
I
No
0 I mw I
VI
-I
L
T-
pj 2-
I-
-S:XI N'. ,. '\
7
_ d ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
/
: . :N .i 'I -
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M It
Wa.te Swr Je At
S, I I I _
, -- i -00 E
W, EwI D _-ing I. I -; t
eanich'7
<' ' '' Phili
=R ',
&rob
I
What IsQuality?
Learn how each of eight well-known gurus
answers this question
by
R.W. Hoyer and Brooke B.Y. Hoyer
'IN 1908,.HENRY M. LELAND off ir n triumph around the parts was seldom consistent.
astorished the members of the track.
Few components arrived
Royal Automobile Club (RAC)
lay, we take it for granted from the machine shop without
by having three of his Cadillac Tod
of the need for some extra filing or
cars dismantled at Brooklands, that thie most intricate pieces
r's machinery can be adjustment before they could
and by having the component a car
replac :ed with an off-the-shelf be incorporated into an engine,
parts thoroughly nixed up.
dupli cate. But in 1908, a car and the secret of the phenome-
His engineers set to work, enginee was still seen as an indi- nal quantity and speed with
taking any available part, and vidua .lly crafted organism, a which Henry Ford had pro-
built the cars up again in handi nade job. That was how duced first the Model N and
front of the RAC members' most. engines had to be made, then the Model T had been in
eyes. Then they drove the cars since the engineering of their the quality of Ford machining."
Although the demand for quality has been part of gurus to see if we can get a sense of what they mean
human nature for a long time, the quantification of when they use the word "quality." Don't be surprised
quality and establishment of formal quality standards to learn that even though there may be a great deal of
are decidedly 20th century phenomena. agreement among the gurus, they do not agree on a
The inordinate attention to quality during the last consensus definition. Although it is often convenient
two decades has created a global marketplace of con- to use the phrase "quality sciences" to describe a
sumers turned on to quality. They think they know broad assortment of analytical tools and quality
what it means, they think they recognize it when they issues, the study of quality is clearly not a science in
see it, and, just as important, they expect-even the same sense that chemistry, for example, is.
demand-quality in every product and service they
purchase. The quality gurus
We will take a look at the writings of eight quality While admitting there is no general agreement
about who is a quality guru and who is not, we have
decided to examine the perspectives of the following:
* Philip B. Crosby.
* W Edwards Deming.
,9~~~
_ , V~ ,
* Armand.V. Feigenbaum.
* Kaoru Ishikawa.
* Joseph M. Juran.
* Robert M. Pirsig.
* Walter A. Shewhart.
I: ~ . Croby'
rsI
* Genichi Taguchi.
We are confident that if we conducted a poll to
identify the 10 most important contributors to the
advancement of quality in the 20th century, everyone
on our list, with the almost certain exception of Pirsig,
The first erroneous assumption is that would be included. Acting on that prejudice, we are
quality means goodness, or luxury, or confident what we would learn about quality by
shininess, or weight. The word "quality" examining the input of a larger group of individuals
is used to signify the relative worth of would be, at best, of marginal importance.
things in such phrases as "good quality," In general, the experts' definitions of quality fall
"bad quality" and that brave new state- into two categories:
ment "quality of life.' "Quality of life" is * Level one quality is a simple matter of producing
a clich6 because each Ustener assumes products or delivering services whose measurable
characteristics satisfy a fixed set of specifications
that the speaker means exactly what he
that are usually numerically defined.
or she, the listener, means by the phrase. * Independent of any of their measurable characteris-
That is precisely the reason we must tics, level two quality products and services are sim-
define quality as "conformance to ply those that satisfy customer expectations for their
requirements" if we are to manage it.... use or consumption.
In business the same is true. In short, level one quality means get it in the specs,
Requirements must be clearly stated so and level two means satisfy the customer.
they cannot be misunderstood. Measure-
Crosby defines quality
ments are then taken continually to deter-
mine conformance to those requirements. The essence of Phil Crosby's definition of quality is
The nonconformance detected is the laid out in his own words in the sidebar at left. Notice
absence of quality. Quality problems his definition is strictly a level one formulation in
which the quality of a product or service is equivalent
become nonconformance problems, and
to being sure all measurable-or, to be more accurate,
quality becomes definable. all measured-characteristics of the product or service
PHILIP B. CROSBY satisfy the characteristics' specification criteria.
The essential points of his definition are:
From Philip B. Crosby, Qulality is Free (New * It is necessary to define quality; otherwise, we cannot
Yorkc McGraw-Hll Book Co., 1979), p. 7. know enough about what we are doing to manage it.
characteristics. . -* *
faction.
* Quality is multidimensional. It must be defined
I , .*:J ! i= comprehensively.
I_1,AAy;_
* Because customers have changing needs and expec-
.~~ ~~
* .4
tations, quality is dynamic. In that regard,
Feigenbaum writes, "A crucial quality role of top
g ~~t IZ'zg,, V ,t management is to recognize this evolution in the
customer's definition of quality at different stages
Nge
I
yn 'au'm':--00
S I S
-
of product growth."
If quality assessment is up to the customer and we
need a surrogate for quality while the product is being
manufactured, then we must be able to translate cus-
tomer satisfaction into product characteristics.
Feigenbaum observes 'that marketing evaluates the
Quality is a oustomer deterrnination, not level of quality customers want and are willing to pay
an engineer's determination, not a market- for, and engineering reduces this marketing evalua-
ing determination, [nlor a general manage- tion to exact specifications.
ment determination. It is based upon the This need to determine what customers are willing
customer's actual experience with the prod- to pay to obtain an approximation of their ideal prod-
uct or service, measured against his or her uct (or service) and then translate that information
requirements-stated or unstated, con- into specifications for a variety of product (or service)
scious or merely sensed, technically opera- characteristics is the nightmare that challenges every
total quality management expert.
tional or entirely subjective-and always
Feigenbaum's discourse seems fairly weak on the
representing a moving target in a competi- subject of translating customer expectations into prod-
tive market uct or service characteristics. On the other hand, it is
Product and service quality can be difficult to find a better outline of the basic compo-
defined as: The total composite product nents and issues of a modern quality focused organi-
and service characteristics of marketing, zation than the one presented in Feigenbaum's book
engineering, manufacture and maintenance Total Quality Control. The book is well-organized, com-
through which the product and service in prehensive and concise. A well-worn copy should be
use will meet the expectations of the cus- on the desk of everyone who has special responsibility
tomer. for assuring quality.
ARMAND V. FEIGENBAUM Ishikawa defines quality
From A.V. Feigenbaumn, Total Quality Control, Ishikawa's definition of quality is a level two defini-
third edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., tion (see the sidebar at right). He is very insightful,
1983). has a great deal to say about the principles of quality
control and is clearly interested in quality assurance at
the in-plant, practical level. He does not, however,
have much to say about how manufacturing proce-
satisfaction, the quality of product A is greater than dures can be. designed to assure the satisfaction of cus-
the quality of product B with respect to a specific tomer needs and expectations.
customer if A satisfies that customer's needs and On the other hand,.Ishikawa makes it clear the
expectations to a greater degree than B does. proof of high quality is the satisfaction of ever chang-
ing consumer expectations.
Feigenbaum defines quality Ishikawa's essential points are:
Feigenbaum's definition of quality (see the sidebar * Quality is equivalent to consumer satisfaction.
above) is unmistakably a level two definition. In fact, * Quality must be. defined comprehensively. It is not
both the definition and the accompanying commen- enough to say the product is of high quality; we
tary are remarkable for their consistency about satisfy- must focus attention on the quality of every facet of
ing the needs and expectations of customers. the organization.
Feigenbaum's essential points are: * Consumers' needs and requirements change.
* Quality must be defined in terms of customer satis- Therefore, the definition of quality is ever changing.
Juran defines quality Inshort, level o le quality means tions (which can be accomplished
fairly well in the workplace).
Juran's definition (see the get it in the speiGS, and level tvo Because he is not satisfied with
sidebar on p. 58) simultaneous- efforts to integrate customer satis-
ly attempts to be a level one means satisfy tileI gustomer. faction with product characteris-
and level two definition. tics, he first attempts to define
Juran's essential points are: quality in two different-and pos-
* A practical definition of quality is probably not pos- sibly inconsistent-ways. When that appears not to
sible. work, he defines quality ambiguously as fitness for
* Even though we would like to use the word "quali- use. In any event, we do not find his definition of
ty" in terms of satisfying customers and specifica- quality useful. What measures of fitness for use do we
tions, it will be very difficult to do so. By defining have that would enable us to assess the quality of a
quality as fitness for use, we can avoid the difficulty. product or service?
Use is apparently associated with customers'
requirements, and fitness suggests conformance to Pirsig defines quality
measurable product characteristics. In our opinion, you must go all the way back to
One gets the impression that Juran would like to Shewhart's pronouncements about quality to find an
9
I
I 4 S- wrote, "But even though quality cannot be defined,
you know what quality is!," and the storm started all
. ,w4i~. over again.
"Oh, no we don't!"
"Oh, yes you do."
"Oh, no we don't!'
'Oh, yes you do!" he said, and he had some materi-
A few days later he [Phaedrus, the central character al ready to demonstrate it to them.
in Pirsig's novell worked up a definition of his own and He had selected two samples of student Gornposi-
put it on the blackboard to be copied for posterity. The tion. The first was a rambling, disconnected thing with
definition was:, Quality is a characteristic of thought interesting ideas that never built into anything. The
and statement that is recognized by a nonthinking second was a magnificent piece by a student who was
process. Because definitions are a product of rigid, for- mystified himself about why it had come out so well.
mal thinking, quality cannot be defined." Phaedrus read both, then asked for a show of hands
The fact that this "definition" was actually a on who thought the first was best. Two hands went
refusal to define did not draw comment. The stu- up. He asked how many liked the second better.
dents had no formal training that would have told Twenty-eight hands went up.
them his statement was, in a formal sense, com- 'Whatever it is,' he said, "that caused the over-
pletely irrational. If you can't define something you whelming majority to raise their hands for the second
have no formal rational way of knowing that it one is what I mean by quality. So you know what it is!"
exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what There was a long reflective silence after this, and he
it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between just let it last.
inability to define and stupidity. When I say, This was just intellectually outrageous, and he knew
'Quality cannot be defined," I'm really saying for- it. He wasn't teaching anymore, he was indoctrinating.
mally, "I'm stupid about quality." ROBERTM. PIRSIG
Fortunately the students didn't know this. If they'd
come up with these objections he wouldn't have been From Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1974), pp.
able to answer them at the time. 206-207.
1. Use.
2. Cos.t
3. Esteem
4. Exchange.
From the viewpoint of control of quality in manu-
facture, it is necessary to establish standards of quali-
ty in a quantitative manner. For this reason we are
forced at the present time to express such standards,
I 6 I 6h&I insofar as possible, in terms of quantitatively measur-
able physical properties. This does not mean, howev-
If we are to talk intelligently about the quality of a er, that the subjective measure of quality is not of
-thing or the quality of a product, we must have in interest. On the contrary, it is the subjective measure
mind a clear picture of what we mean by quaLity. that is of commercial interest.
Enough has been said to indicate that there are two Looked at broadly, there are, at a given time, cer-
common aspects of quality. One of these has to do tain human wants to be fulfilled through the fabrica-
with the'con'sideration of the quality of a thing as an tion of raw materials into finished products o_f
objective reality independent of the existence of man. different kinds. These wants are statistical in nature in
' The other has to do with what we think, feel or sense that the quality of a finished product in terms of the
as a result of the objective reality. physical characteristics wanted by one individual is
In other words, there is a subjective side of quality. not the same for all individuals.
For example, we are dealing with the subiective con- The first step of the engineer in trying to satisfy
cept of quality when we attempt to measure the these wants is, therefore, that off translating as nearly
goodness of a thing, for it is impossible to think of a as possible these wants into physical characteristics
thing as having goodness independent of some of the thing manufactured to satsfy these wants. In
human want. Infact, this subjective concept of quality taking this step, intuition and judgment play an
is closely tied up with the utility or value of the objec- important role as well as the broad knowledge of the
tive physical properties of the thing itself. human element involved in the wants of individuals.
For the most part, we may think of the objective The second step of the engineer is to set up ways and
quality characteristics of a thing as being constant means of obtaining a product which wit differ from
and measurable in the sense that physical laws are the arbitrarily set standards for these quality charac-
quantitatively expressible and independent in time. teristics by no more than may be left to chance.
* When we consider quality from a subjective view- WALTER A: SHEWIfART
point, eomparatively serious difficulties arise. To
begin with, there are various aspects of the concept From W.A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of
Manufactured Product (New Yoxk- D. Van Nostrand Co., 1931),
of value. We may differentiate between the following pp. 53-54.
' four kinds of value:
point and what it actually gets. Obviously, the maximum quality experienced by
Note that two specific values of the quality charac- society occurs when society gets exactly what it wants
teristic have been identified as A and B on the hori- (its preferred point). The larger the distance between
zontal axis. To find the quality that society assodates what society actually gets and the location of its pre-
with A, for example, merely trace a vertical line from ferred point, the less quality society will experience. In
A down to the sodetal quality curve; then trace a hori- Figure 1, A is closer to -what society wants than B is.
zontal line from that point over to the quality axis. The Therefore, society will experience greater quality if it
point on the vertical axis is the quality society will gets A than if it is forced to settle for B-in other
experience for wanting its preferred point, but having words Q(A) > Q(B).
to settle for A. Although there is considerable merit in the concep-
60 j J U LY 2 00 1JWWW AS Q.OR G
superb conceptual model for the way an
ffmnl
UNNONNNNOMP
- Societal Quality Function individual customer actually thinks about
the quality of alternatives, given his or her
,. I --- C. - - . - I - ...... - quality profile. By "quality profile," we
;t00000;
2::: Quality : mean an ordered pair consisting of the
customer's preferred point and loss func-
Preferred tion. That is an excellent characterization
Maximum quality-t B A Pmt PQuality of an individual customer.
-,- - - - - 1acharacteri stic
But how do you aggregate the individ-
ual quality profiles of customers to pro-
duce a logically defensible and practically
Q(BJ usable societal quality profile? Taguchi
- - --- ---- - - -- ------~~ ~ has no answer to that question. In fact, it
is not clear that he ever entertains that
Societal thought.
quality function Taguchi says "Quality is the loss a
product causes to society after being
A and Bare two specific values of the quality characteristics.
shipped." (See the sidebar on p. 62). If
we are correct in suggesting each poten-
tial customer in a marketplace has a
quality profile that looks much like the
1NNWNWWWNMM Taguchi Societal Loss Function model in Figure 2, then the challenge is
to determine loss to society by somehow
aggregating the quality profiles of
individuals to obtain a societal quality
profile.
Then by minimizing loss to society
loissfunction i
(which is Taguchi's objective), we maxi-
k mize quality. In a real sense, this is the
challenge that confronts the market
research and design and development
Lossi- --- departments of every company.
I
i
The essential points made by Taguchi
are:
MaximumrloSs 0luality * Quality is loss to society.
B A Preferred charsacteristic * Loss caused by the product's or ser-
point vice's intrinsic function does not
Aand Bare two specificvaluesofthequalitycharacteristics.
count toward the loss to society. For
example, an intervention program
designed to get young girls to use
computers may be a very high quality
program (the girls' parents are
tual model depicted in Figure 1, the model is usually extremely satisfied with their daughters' increased
characterized in terms of loss, not quality. It is a sim- interest in computers), even though'the program's
ple matter to change the orientation from quality to intrinsic function causes certain losses to society
loss. Simply take the display in Figure 1 and flip it (because some of the girls, when using the
upside down (see Figure 2). Instead of experiencing a Internet, come into contact with unsavory adults
decrease in quality as the supplier's product or service whose intentions are far from honorable).
position moves away from the societal preferred Is Taguchi's definition level one or level two?
point, society experiences an increase in loss when Although it is not easy to tell from the discussion
that occurs. presented here, Taguchi's definition is level one.
In truth, we are troubled by this model for societal At first blush, you might think his definition is the
loss. If you replace "societal loss function" in Figure 2 epitome of level two, but a second look will reveal
with "customer loss function," the illustration is a that the strategy designed to maximize quality (min-
REFERENCES
naceptabl -Ic.A eeptable I Unacaeptebl
quafty
X quality quality 1.Robert Lacey, Ford: The Men and the
Machine (New York: Ballantine Books, 1991),
pp. 113-114.
2. David A. Garvin, Managing Quality (New
York: The Free Press, 1988).
3. Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of
imize loss to society) may be one that leaves a fairly Motorcycle Maintenance (New York: William Morrow & Co.,
large number (even a majority) of individual cus- 1974), pp. 206-207.
tomers out in the cold.
For example, if we are concerned with providing
police department services, perhaps our strategy for ROBERT W. HOYER is president of Decision Dynamics Inc., Ann
minimizing loss to society (maximizing quality Arbor, MI. He has two master's degrees in mathematics and
according to Taguchi) for a particular service is one earned a doctorate in statistics from Virginia Polytechnic
in which we significantly curtail services for the Institute. Hoyer is a Senior Member ofASQ.
poor and invest all our resources in protecting the
BROOKE B.Y. HOYER is a software design engineer at Hewlett-
wealthy.
Figure 3, which is sometimes called the "goal Packard's Digital Printing Technologies Division in Vancouver,
posts model," is often presented as the illustration of WA. He earned a bachelor's degree in computer science from the
the level one definition of quality. Even that is not as University ofMichigan. @
62 | J UL Y 2 00 1 | WW W. AS Q. OR G
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION