Exploring Quality Using Kelemens Dimensions - Coursework Example

Quality Dimensions Student’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Quality as a word has diverse interpretations depending on the circumstance under which it is used. Jain (2006) defines quality as the extent to which a commodity or service satisfies the needs of a client. He further argues that, even if the commodity produced meets all the required standards, it won’t be deemed to have the quality component if it makes to the market late and if it is not affordable. Johnson (2015) in his tutorial slides on operations and quality management defines quality as the level to which a commodity or service complies with a plan requirement. With the advent of technology, quality need to be the core of every producer because with new advanced technologies, quality problems of products land at the consumers’ doorsteps very fast. A firm which puts quality first in the production of its products saves, on average, $350 million annually in fixing quality mistakes compared to a firm which shelves quality (Ashwin and Bryan 2014). Kelemen (2003) agrees with the various definitions that exist in trying to define quality. He advises those searching for a single globally accepted definition of quality to quit the search and assent to the fact that quality is elusive, multidimensional and an incidental concept. Garvin (1984) agrees with Kelemen by suggesting that reliance on a single definition of quality often results in problems. That is why in his attempts to define quality, he came up with five approaches to do the same. It is on these very five approaches that Kelemen builds his 8 dimensions of defining quality. Sower (2011) throws in his support for numerous definitions of quality by asserting that quality is a term to which each and every individual has his or her own definition. This essay will explore quality using Kelemen’s dimensions as a foundation in understanding its fluid, contextual and perceived nature. Quality can be looked at using two perspectives, the managerial perspective and the critical perspective. The managerial perspective is termed so because it tends to look at quality as a something which is distinct, functioning, measurable and controllable whereas the critical perspective views quality as having social, political and cultural components (Kelemen 2003). Managerial perspectives on Quality This perspective of looking at quality is made up of four approaches; product-based approach, manufacturing-based approach, value-based approach and user based approach (Kelemen, 2003). The product-based approach This approach looks at quality as something which is exact and can be quantified on a scale. Varying levels of quality of a product is as a result of varying quantities of the required substance present in that product (Abbott 1955). For instance the quality of coffee is determined by the amount of caffeine; the higher the amount of caffeine in the coffee the better the quality of coffee. It is possible to control and vary the quality of a product by varying the amounts of the active ingredient in that particular product. So when trying to define quality, this dimension need not to be taken lightly because customers tend to understand the quality of a product by the amount of its constituents. Deducing from this dimension one is bound to conclude that the higher the quality the costly the product is since higher quality products contain more quantities of the required ingredients and these ingredients cost more to produce. Also deduced from this dimension is that quality is looked as a naturally occurring component of the product instead of something imputed to them (Ashwin and Bryan 2014). Manufacturing-based approach In this approach, Gilmore (1974) defines quality as the extent to which a commodity submits to a required plan. Crosby (1979) agrees to this fact by postulating that a product is deemed to be of quality if it meets all the required specifications. If the manufacturing process and the production layout are free from defects then the product produced from such a process is deemed to have met the set standards. In this case quality is function of a flawless production design. Elimination of errors during production process will ensure a high quality product (Kelemen 2003). This approach to quality has led to setting up of standards and designs that should be adhered to in order to prevent defects during the manufacturing process. This is because eliminating defects is less expensive compared to amending the defect (Crosby 1979). A product that strays from set requirements is likely to be poorly manufactured and not reliable hence does not satisfy the customer’s needs compared to the one that is suitably made and of high quality. Walton (1986) discredits this approach by saying that the preposterous of meeting specifications is that, you are meeting the specifications that you think the customer requires; the customer has not been involved in the setting up of the standards. The company has come up with specifications that it thinks will suit the customer. The value-based approach Here quality is looked at in terms of prices and costs. A product is thought to be of quality if it provides performance at a tolerable price or the cost of the product not conforming to the required specifications is tolerable (Garvin 1984). This approach of quality puts pressure on employees and managers because on their hands is the task of producing a highly efficient product in terms of customer satisfaction at a reduced cost. The consumer in this approach is poised to reap more in terms of benefits because the products and services available to him or her are better and cheap, hence getting value for his or her money. Consumer complaints are one way of indicating consumer satisfaction (Dale, Wiele and Iwaarden 2007). Beckford (2010) agrees to consumer satisfaction a critical way of achieving quality. The user-based approach This managerial approach to quality looks at quality as the extent to which the product meets the consumer’s requirements. In this approach Gronroos (1983) defines quality as satisfying and better still surpassing the consumer’ expectations. Individual consumers have varying preferences and those products that satisfy those different needs and wants of consumers have the highest quality (Calfa 2010). Juran (1992) introduces his concept of “fitness for use” in defining quality based on the user-based approach. He postulates that a product is of high quality if it does not pose any danger to the user and if it does not lead to violations of obligations to the community. Thus it important to identify customer needs through “preference testing” in order to know what is important to the consumer for this aspect of quality to be incorporated in products (Bayton 1958; Bucklin 1963). Here the company has to operationalize consumer demands in production in order to close the gap between perceived and actual consumer expectations. The critical perspective on quality This perspective of quality has the view that quality is an intricate and multifaceted concept which does not subscribe to a single conclusive definition. Quality has many antagonistic meanings which are as a result of inter-subjective communications. Quality is seen as being a social, cultural and political process (Kelemen 2003). The critical perspective is made up of the following approaches; transcendental approach, the social constructivist approach, the discursive approach and the slogan approach. The transcendental approach In this approach quality is seen as an intrinsic perfection. A perfection that is inborn in part of the product (Kelemen 2003). It cannot have a precise definition but can only be instinctively understood. It is a plain property that cannot be analysed in terms of measures but can only be felt through experience. This is a philosophical approach to quality. For example beauty, cannot be precisely defined but can only be recognized through experience. The social constructivist approach This approach of looking at quality takes into account the opinions of consumers, quality experts, management, standardisation bodies etc. What these groups of people have to say constitutes quality (Kelemen 2003). In this approach quality is not innate to the product or service but is declared to be good by those in a status to acknowledge quality in that product or service. Quality gains varying and occasionally contested meanings in this approach. The meaning of quality in this respect is shaped by the opinions of those whose voices are thought to be powerful within and outside the company irrespective of how the rest of the voices perceive quality (Ashwin and Bryan 2014). Such powerful voices or so thought to be carry the day as far as quality is concerned at the expense of the rest of the contributors and are thus perceived to be the “actuality of quality”. So to achieve a true picture of quality under this approach attempts at democracy should be made so that the marginal voices are also heard and included in defining quality. The discursive approach In this approach language is key to constructing the true meaning of quality. Language enables people in an organisation come up with, discuss, make meaning and implement certain realities that constitute quality. This approach stresses on the interdependence between language, power and reality (Kelemen 2003). Quality here is seen inexpression of words. If this aspect of simply having conversation is to bring out quality definition then the messages in these conversations have to be believed. The slogan approach This approach postulates that the word quality has been in use for a long time and that has led to the abuse of the same term. It has been misused and now it is simply just a slogan. A slogan is a phrase that everybody agrees to and subscribes to. This gives the misapprehension of a universally accepted meaning of quality that is approved by everybody (Kelemen 2003). Thus quality is taken lightly within the organization; everybody assumes that it is a common sense aspect for everybody in the organization. This assumption makes it difficult for the management and employees to ascribe to fundamentals of quality such as how to pursue quality and maintain it. This is attributed to everybody assuming that quality is common sense and everybody knows what to do in relation to quality and that quality should come automatically. More discussions about quality will motivate employees in that they will be compelled to associate themselves with quality but in the end it may have detrimental effects when actually an organization does not do what it actually claims to be doing (Calfa 2010). This would taint the image of the organization. Thus organizations should remain chary of slogans that persuade them to look at quality as something that is inherent and already existing in the members of the organization. For quality looked at as simply a slogan conceals the contentious political, cultural and social parameters in which quality is enshrined (Kelemen 2003). Conclusion In conclusion, searching for a universally accepted definition of quality is an exercise in futility. This because quality assumes different meanings depending on the circumstances. For instance, the titanic ship was a ship of high quality in terms of specifications; made from high quality metals to withstand water forces, endowed with high speeds, a swimming pool, an automatic dish washer, the list is endless. It was a vessel of high quality. But when it faced its critical challenge it wouldn’t weather that challenge because of the quality of the decision on the part of those manning the vessel; they approached an iceberg at high speed; a decision of poor quality. So quality is a diverse term that can only be understood in their immediate context. The various approaches to defining quality can give a glim picture as to what quality is but cannot conclusively define quality, at least not on their own. Quality cannot be achieved at once within an organization; it can only continuously be improved. This is echoed in Aristotle’s words that quality is an art won by training and habituation; we are what we repeatedly do. We may not agree on the definition of quality but at least we agree that quality exists and needs to be pursued. References Abbott, L 1955, Quality and Competition, Columbia University Press, New York. Ashwin, S and Bryan, K 2014, Creating a Culture of Quality, Harvard Business Review, viewed 28 February 2015, http://hbr.org/2014/04/creating-a-culture-of-quality Bayton, JA 1958, Motivation, Cognition, Learning- Basic Factors in Consumer behaviour, Journal of Marketing, vol.22, no. 3, pp. 282-289. Beckford, JLW 2010, Quality- A critical Introduction, Routledge, New York. Bucklin, LP 1963, Retail Strategy and the Class of Consumer Goods, Journal of Marketing, vol. 27, pp. 51-56. Calfa, JM 2010, Product Quality by Dr. Garvin (1984), viewed 28 February 2015, http://www.onquality.info/2010/04/product-quality-by-dr-garvin-1984_23.html. Crosby, PB 1979, Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill, Michigan. Dale, BG, Wiele, TW and Iwaarden, JV 2007, Managing Quality, Blackwell, Oxford. Garvin, DA 1984, What does Product Quality Really Mean?, viewed 28 February 2015, http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-does-product-quality-really-mean. Gilmore, HL 1974, Product Conformance Cost in Quality Progress, Qual, New York. Gronroos, C 1983, Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Marketing Science institute, Massachussetts. Jain, PLJ 2006, Quality Control and Total Quality Management, sixth edition, Tata McGraw- Hill, New Delhi. Johnson, P 2015, Introduction to Quality: tutorial slides on Operations and Quality management, Springer, New York. Juran, JM 1992, Quality by Design: The new steps for planning Quality into Goods, Simon and Schuster, New York. Kelemen, ML 2003, Managing Quality, Sage, London. Sower, VE 2011, Essentials of Quality: With Cases and Experiental Exercises, Wiley and sons, New Jersey. Walton, M 1986, The Deming Management Method, Berkley publishing group, New York Read More