What Does “Product Quality” Really Mean?
Magazine: Fall 1984 October 15, 1984 Reading Time: 40 min
David A. Garvin
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-does-product-quality-really-mean/
Directions for Future Research
There is a clear need for more precise measures of product quality. Few studies have recognized the multiple dimensions of quality, and still fewer, the possibility that quality may have different meanings in different industries. Much of the empirical research on the correlates of quality needs to be replicated with these distinctions in mind. Similarly, analysts need to determine if the various dimensions of quality move together or separately, for otherwise, managers will be unable to position their companies to exploit particular quality niches.
These questions suggest two possible avenues of research. The first would focus on the determinants of consumer satisfaction, consumer perceptions of quality, and the relative importance of the various dimensions of quality in shaping buyer behavior. Andreasen, for example, has found that indexes of consumer satisfaction based on voiced complaints, objective measures of product nonperformance, satisfaction immediately after purchase, and satisfaction after initial problems have been resolved are not well correlated.72 Each apparently measures a slightly different aspect of consumer satisfaction. Similar research is necessary to understand the precise connection between consumer satisfaction and the various dimensions of quality discussed in this article. As Takeuchi and Quelch point out, for many consumers “quality is more than [simply] making a good product.”73
A second possible line of research would focus on manufacturing tradeoffs. Traditionally, analysts have argued that manufacturing operations could only be effective if they pursued a limited set of objectives.74 Low cost, high quality, rapid delivery, flexibility to volume changes, and flexibility to new product introductions were thought to be mutually incompatible. Tradeoffs were unavoidable, and anyone goal could only be achieved at the expense of others.
Japanese manufacturers, however, have succeeded in producing products that meet the twin objectives of high quality (conformance and reliability) and low cost. Their ability to do so has forced analysts to reconsider the concept of manufacturing tradeoffs, for many traditional assumptions no longer apply.75 This area clearly warrants further research. Tradeoffs among the various dimensions of quality and between these dimensions and the objectives of cost, flexibility, and delivery must be better understood. Do the different dimensions of quality require different forms of expertise, or are firms likely to succeed on several dimensions at once? Durability, for example, often requires the use of sturdy and oversized components; does it also guarantee superior reliability, or is that more a reflection of how the assembly process is managed? More generally, which of the dimensions of quality are primarily a reflection of manufacturing skills, and which reflect design and engineering expertise? These questions must be answered if companies are to devise and execute effective strategies for competing on the basis of product or service quality.
72. A. R. Andreasen, “A Taxonomy of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Measures,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, Winter 1977, pp. 11–24.
73. H. Takeuchi and J. A. Quelch, “Quality Is More Than Making a Good Product,” Harvard Business Review, July–August 1983, pp. 139–145.
74. W. Skinner, “Manufacturing — Missing Link in Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, May–June 1969, pp. 136–145; W. Skinner, “The Focused Factory,” Harvard Business Review, May–June 1974, pp. 113–121; S. C. Wheelwright, “Reflecting Corporate Strategy in Manufacturing Decisions,” Business Horizons, February 1978, pp. 57–66.
75. Wheelwright (July–August 1981).
See the future scope section in
Total Quality Management and Just-in-Time Purchasing: Their Effects on Performance of Firms Operating in the U.S. (Google eBook)
Hale Kaynak
Routledge, Jun 17, 2013 - 342 pages
This study investigates the relation of total quality management (TQM) and just-in-time purchasing (JITP) with respect to firms' performance, based on theories from operations management, organization theory, strategic management and marketing. U.S. companies have implemented TQM and JITP techniques to improve their global competitive position. The lack of empirical research on how these techniques effect firms performance makes it necessary to explain their strategic values as management innovations.
In this study, a cross-sectional mail survey was used with the target population of firms in the continental United States that have implemented either technique, or both. The results indicate that the extent of TQM and JITP implementation positively correlates with a firm's performance. Furthermore, the relation between JITP and financial and market performance is more significant in those industries that face high as opposed to low foreign competition.
In this study, the validity of findings was assessed in four parts: statistical conclusion, internal, construct, and external validity. Each validity type is defined and its threats are discussed. Based on the findings, a revised research model is offered. The author also notes likely avenues of future research for theorists and practitioners.
Preview the book
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zVOKfGrR-oYC
