Sloan Management

Review

---~-.-.-----~.~---

Fall 1984

.-.------.--.--~-

25

What Does "Product Quality" Really Mean?

David A. Garvin

Harvard University

In this article. the author reviews and synthesizes the varying definitions of product quality arising from philosophy. economics. marketing. and operations management. He then goes on to build an eightdimensional framework to elaborate on these definitions. Using this framework. he addresses the empirical relationships between quality and variables such as price. advertising. market share. cost. and profitability. Ed.

Product quality is rapidly becoming an important competitive issue. The superior reliability of many Japanese products has sparked considerable soul-searching among American managers." In addition, several surveys have voiced consumers' dissatisfaction with the existing levels of quality and service of the products they buy.? In a recent study of the business units of major North American companies, managers ranked "producing to high quality standards" as their chief current concern." Despite the interest of managers, the academic literature on quality has not been reviewed extensively. The problem is one of coverage: scholars in four disciplines - philosophy, economics, marketing, and operations management - have considered the subject, but each group has viewed it from a different vantage point. Philosophy has focused on definitional issues; economics, on profit maximization and market equilibrium; marketing, on the determinants of buying behavior and customer satisfaction; and operations management, on engineering practices and manufacturing control. The result has been a host of competing perspectives, each based on a different analytical framework and each employing its own terminology. At the same time, a number of common themes are apparent. All of them have important management implications. On the conceptual front, each discipline has wrestled with the following questions: Is quality objective or subjective? Is it timeless or socially determined? Empirically, interest has focused on the correlates of quality. What, for example, is the connection between quality and price? Between quality and advertising? Between quality and cost'? Between quality and market share'? More generally,

do quality improvements lower profits?

lead to higher or

Five Approaches to Defining Quality
Five major approaches to the definition of quality can be identified: (1) the transcendent approach of philosophy; (2) the product-based approach of economics; (3) the user-based approach of economics, marketing, and operations management; and (4) the manufncturing-based and (5) value-based approaches of operations management. Table 1 presents representative examples of each approach. 1. The Transcendent Approach According to the transcendent view, quality is synonymous with "innate excellence.'?' It is both absolute and universally recognizable, a mark of uncompromising standards and high achievement. Nevertheless, proponents of this view claim that quality cannot be defined precisely; rather, it is a simple. unanalyzable property that we learn to recognize only through experience. This definition borrows heavily from Plato's discussion of beauty." In the SY!11posiuIT1, argues that he beauty is one of the "platonic forms," and. therefore, a term that cannot be defined. Like other such terms that philosophers consider to be "logically primitive," beauty (and perhaps quality as well) can be understood only after one is exposed to a succession of objects that display its characteristics. Approach Product-based definitions are quite different; they view quality as a precise and measurable variable. According to this view, differences in quality reflect differences in the
2. The Product-based

" in Household I'rcducnon and Consn rnptioll. (b) the selling price of the product. Value-based Definition: . for goods can be ranked according to the amount of the desired attribute that they possess. which influences the demand curve. p. Day._----_ ----------. :HI) II..in effect. Steiner." (E. Abbott. Product-based Definition: _ "Differences in quality amount to differences in the quantity of some desired ingredient (L. A. _ " ."Quality [means] conformance p." (A. but a third entity independent cannot be defined." Since durable goods provide a stream of services over time. lJ:lI Mainten(lnce. 1U5. p." Economic Bedp."Quality is the degree to which a specific product conforms to a design or specification. Leffler. Quu!Hv Control I!onrlbook. where they were quickly incorporated into theoretical models. including the services included in the contract of sales." (B.luran. M. 101) ." For example.. Maynes. Feigenbaum. O. "Strategy of Product Quality. just as fine rugs have a large number of knots per square inch. . Motorcvcle even though Quality ~p. 2 November 10BO. L." "Product Conformance Cost. [une 1974. 5-!2) (I. Quality differences could." QualilY Progress."Quality is the degree of excellence at an acceptable price and the control of variability at an acceptable cost. Tuchman. or attribute. Managing Quality for iligher Projits. :1) . p. an unambiguous ranking is possible only if the attributes in question are considered preferable by virtually all buyers. Transcendent Definition: _ "Quality is neither mind nor matter."Quality refers to the amounts of the unpriced (K. . be treated as differences in quantity." Amerjcnu Economic Het-iew. 'The Meaning of Quality. 191ill. November-December '1962. 95li) III. increased durability implies a longer stream of services ."Quality is any aspect of a product." IV. 16) Gilmore. Kuenn and R. Broh... "Opttmnl Advertising and Optimal Quality. "The Concept and Measurement of Product Quality." QU(Jlity and Compelit1. the quality of a product depends on how well it fits patterns of consumer preferences. highquality ice cream has a high butterfat content. 15) (Gilmore. p. ed."Quality consists of the capacity to satisfy wants." (It. 2-2) . p. Dorfman and P. p . U." (A."Quality is fitness for use." Hnrvurd llllsinoss Review."Quality consists of the extent to which a specimen [a product-brand-model-seller combination] possesses the service characteristics you desire.. p." Qll(J/ity Progress. p. D. 37) [1-1.." American December 1902." (R. " (C.. V. W. December 1954. L. "The Decline 01 Quality." Nerv York Times Ml1gnzine. These conditions are (a) the actual use and Total Q'mlity Control. I-'p. attributes contained in each unit of the priced attribute. . 19B2. Edwards. "Ambiguous Changes in Product Quality. Quality is achieving or reaching for the highest standard as against being satisfied with the sloppy or fraudulent. Il:ll) . Zen and the Mt oj of the two . However. . M. . simply because it was so easily translated into the above framework. 1) quantity of some ingredient or attribute possessed by a product. Manufacturing-based Definition: to requirements. ."Quality means best for certain customer conditions. User-based Definition: . Crosby. QUfllity Is Free."Quality is the degree to which a specific product satisfies the wants of a specific consumer. October p. the early economic research on quality focused almost exclusively on durability. A. S." Product-based definitions of quality first appeared in the economics literature. p.26 Garvin -.lV. 1:!fi--127) . In fact. more of the good.. therefore."In the final analysis of the marketplace." (R. This approach lends a vertical or hierarchical dimension to quality. a condition of excellence implying fine quality as distinct from poor quality .1HI B." V. p.. luno 1974.------- Product Quality -------------------------------------------Table 1 -------- ----_ Five Definitions of Quality I. you know what it is.o11." (1'. Pirsi g.

considerably simplifying the mathematics. Garvin is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Graduate School of Business Administration. The User-based Approach User-based definitions start ffom the opposite premise that quality "lies in the eyes of the beholder."! and in the operations management literature. The Manufacturing-based Approach User-based definitions of quality incorporate subjective elements.v' A more basic problem with the user-based approach is its equation of quality with maximum satisfaction. and public agencies. and those goods that best satisfy their preferences are those that they regard as having the highest quality. 3. His primary research interests are in the areas of prod uction and operations management. and Cclifornto Management Review. these problems have been ignored by theorists. and discussion teaching. The second is more fundamental . degree from Harvard University and the Ph. corporations. Long-lived products are generally preferred to those that wear out more quickly. the product's objective characteristics are also being considered. was derived in the first place.>. Economists." 12 Each of these concepts. First. This was not always true: until the late nineteenth century. faces two problems. have typically specified mouels in which the market demand curve responds to quality changes without explaining how that curve. Unfortunately. and the difficulty of devising an unbiased statistical procedure for aggregating such widely varying preferencr 'S. and is based on more than preferences alone. The first is practical how to aggregate widely varying individual preferences so that they lead to meaningful definitions of quality at the market level. for only wealthy individuals could afford delicate products that required frequent replacement or repair.how to distinguish those product attributes that connote quality from those that simply maximize consumer satisfaction. In the marketing literature. industrial economics. . Because quality reflects the quantity of attributes that a product contains. for example. Garvin has had consulting and executive education experience with major U. In contrast. Dr. 4. for they are rooted in consumer preferences . which represents the summation of individual preferences. higher-quality goods will be more expensive. are open to varying interpretations. Today. but is it necessarily better as well'? The implied equivalence often breaks down in practice. 9 This is an idiosyncratic and personal view of quality. they are by no means identical.the determinants of demand. A consumer may enjoy a particular brand because of its unusual taste or features. and are primarily concerned with engineering and manufacturing practice.B. Garvin holds the A. quality is viewed as an inherent characteristic of goods. to the view that quality differences are captured by shifts in a product's demand curve. In the latter assessment. mally attach to quality characteristics. A product that maximizes satisfaction is certainly preferable to one that meets fewer needs. with virtually all users agreeing on the desirability of certain product attributes. it can be assessed objectively. this approach ignores the different weights that individuals nor. nonprofit organizations. however. manufacturing-based definitions focus on the supply side of the equation. There are two obvious corollaries to this approach. yet may still regard some other brand as being of higher quality. Business Horizons. He is the author ofThe Economics of University Behavior and coauthor of Cases in Operotions Management. however.13 For the most part. rather than as something ascribed to them. Because quality reflects the presence or absence of measurable product attributes. higher quality can only be obtained at higher cost.I. Even perfectly objective characteristics. durable goods were primarily possessions of the poor. Harvard Business Review. Harvard University. His many articles have appeared ill such journals as Col urnbic journo] of Wodd Business."? in the economics literature. IS The result was a long-standing association between durability and inferior quality. and one that is highly subjective. to the concept of "fitness for use." Individual consumers are assumed to have different wants or needs. it has led to the notion of "ideal points": precise combinations of product attributes that provide the greatest satisfaction to a specified consumer. and because attributes are considered to be costly to produce.Sloan Management Review Fall 1984 27 David A.D. Dr. The aggregation problem is usually resolved by assuming that high-quality products are those that best meet the needs of a majority of consumers. While the two are related. Second. durability is regarded as an important element of quality.S. a view tha t changed only with the mass production of luxury items made possible by the Industrial Revolution.T. degree from M. A consensus of views is implied.

they view what happens in the factory as much less important than what happens in the field. assumed to be performing suboptimally: were they only to increase their expenditures on prevention and inspection . Marketing people typically take a user-bas ed or product-based approach to the subj eet. enhanced features. it helps to explain the often competing views of quality held by members of the mar keting and manufacturing departments. and warranty expenses falling by an even greater amount.a product that deviates from specifications is likely to be poorly made and unreliable. Manufacturing people normally take a different approach. is being equated with value. The coexistence of these differing approaches has several important implications. and beauty products reflecting a product-based approach to the subject . for it would find few buyers. Because they see the customer as the arbiter of quality. They actually define quality in terms of costs and prices. Each of these techniques is focused on the same end: cost reduction. no :matter how well constructed. clothing. scrap." Because they associate poor quality wi th high . According to this view. by analyzing a product's basic components. improvements in quality (which are equivalent to reductions in the number of deviations) lead to lower costs. and then proposing alternative designs to enhance reliability. identifying possible failure modes. a $500 running shoe. The result is a hybrid "affordable excellence" . 18 Both techniques are deSigned to weed out deviations early: the former. According to the manufacturing-based approach. "16 Once a design or a specification has been established.testing prototypes more carefully or weeding out a larger number of defective components before they become part of fully assembled units .21Under this approach. The Implications of Multiple Definitions Most existing definitions of quality f'all into one of the categories listed above. The Value-based Approach Value-based definitions take this idea one step further. Excellence is equated with meeting specifications. quality arieans conformance to specifications and an emphasis on "doing it right the first ti:tn_e. Quality. and with "making it right the first time. a quality product is one that provides performance at an acceptable price or conformance at an acceptable COSt.While ingredieI1 ts and materials were seen as the key quality indicators in such categories as food. by employing statistical techniques to discover when a production process is performing outside acceptable limits. While this approach recognizes the consumer's interest in quality .its primary focus is internal. any deviation implies a reduction in quality. 20 5."? and on the manufacturing side. to an emphasis on statistical quality control. as is a well-made Chevette. therefore. First. for preventing defects is viewed as less expensive than repairing or reworking thern.28 Garvin -------------------------- Product Quality Virtually all manufacturing-based definitions identify quality as "conformance to requirements. which is a measure of excellence.that lacks well-defined limits and is difficult to apply in practice.t? Firms are. Quality is defined in a manner that simplifies engineering and production control. a well-made Mercedes is a highquality automobile.they would find their rework. higher quality means better performance. for them.s. and other improvements that increase cost. For them. personal care. 'vvhioh is a measure of worth.the study'S overall conclusion vvas that "quality is increasingly apt to be discussed and perceived in relationship to price." The difficulty in employing this approach lies in its blending of two related but distinct concepts. A recent survey of consumer perceptions of quality in twenty-eight product categories suggests that the value-based view is becoming more prevalent. could not be a quality product." In these terms. this has led to an emphasis on reliability engineering. providing less satisfaction than one that is properly constructed . the latter. On the design side.

generated no customer complaints even though they failed to meet the standard. Only then are the two groups likely to agree on the nature of the problems they face. a large division of a major consumer goods company recently reviewed its quality management practices. manufacturing people usually expect quality improvements to result in cost reductions. and defective items had not been shipped to the trade in any large number. manufacturer of room air conditioners faced the opposite problem. The Need for Different Definitions. that large losses were incurred.S. the failure to follow through with tight conformance in manufacturing cost the company dearly. these characteristics must then be translated into identifiable product attributes (a productbased approach to quality). Nevertheless. Conformance was excellent. Another group felt that the process had to be revamped because quality was so poor: new product releases were frequently delayed while designs were reconfigured to adapt to manufacturing requirements. The Potential for Conflict. scrap. the project quickly stalled. For example. Because of these disagreements. A process that ignores anyone of these steps will not result in a quality product. .Sloan Management Review Fall 1984 29 levels of rework and scrap. For example. however. companies need to cultivate such differing perspectives. Despite the potential for conflict. Each is vague and imprecise when it comes to describing the basic elements of product quality." have shown an interest in these details. Performance. and can cause serious breakdowns in communications. Features. customer complaints were few. All three views are necessary and must be consciously cultivated. for new products were regarded as the key to competitive success. The firm was especially interested in assessing its new-product introduction process. and the manufacturing process must then be organized to ensure that products are made precisely to these specifications (a manufacturing-based approach to quality). reflecting a manufacturing-based approach to quality. Remedial efforts may become paralyzed if the coexistence of these competing perspectives is not openly acknowledged. and material and labor variances of several hundred thousand dollars had been incurred because of unanticipated expenditures on rework and scrap.e> A leading U. but acceptance was poor. Further progress requires the recognition that one group is employing a user-based definition of quality while the other is employing a manufacturing-based approach. Other rolls of newsprint. Eight Dimensions of Quality Eight dimensions can be identified. While the product's design matched customers' needs. 2. The characteristics that connote quality must first be identified through market research (a user-based approach to quality). One group felt that the process had been quite successful: new products appeared regularly. Reject. for much can be learned by treating quality in a less homogeneous fashion. Reliance on a single definition of quality is a frequent source of problems. Its products were well received by customers and highly rated by Consumer Reports. Two divergent views emerged. That oversight is unfortunate. These examples suggest the need to actively shift one's approach to quality as products move from design to market. however. and warranty costs were so high. each of the major approaches to quality shares a common problem. Relatively few analysts. for they are essential to the successful introduction of high-quality products. a Japanese paper manufacturer recently discovered that its newsprint rolls failed to satisfy customers even though they met the Japanese Industrial Standard. These two views are obviously in conflict. with the exceptions of juran>' and Maynes. as a framework for thinking about the baSIC elements of product quality: 1.

yet few consumers would regard this difference as a measure of quality. It reflects the probability of a product's failing within a specified period of time. 4. like product performance. a good . 1.. Among the words that describe product performance are terms that are frequently associated with quality as well as terms that fail to carry the association. involve objective and measurable attributes. cruising speed. color. and brands can usually be ranked objectively on at least one dimension of performance. they would include sound and picture clarity. . the various characteristics can be viewed . rather than in their assessments of the characteristics . For an automobile. It is these characteristics in which consumers are interested . each is likely to equate quality with high performance in his or her area of immediate interest. Performance First on the list is performance. a second dimension of quality. Examples include free drinks on a plane flight. . The relationship between . permanent press as well as cotton cycles on a washing machine.. The products simply belong to different performance classes.>' The theory is based on two propositions. handling. Individuals differ in their reaction to different characteristics. however. as each helping to satisfy some kind of "want. . these would be traits like acceleration. while the relationship between performance and quality would reflect individual reactions. Measurable product attributes are involved. the performance of a product would correspond to its objective characteristics. for a product can be ranked high on one dimension while being low on another. 2. Features. There is a clear analogy here to Lancaster's theory of consumer demand. The distinction between the two is primarily one of centrality or degree of importance to the user. In many cases." Quality. For example. a 100-watt light bulb provides greater candlepower (performance) than a 60-watt bulb. Serviceability. the line separating primary product characteristics (performance) from secondary characteristics (features) is difficult to draw.. Conformance. Reliability Reliability is a third dimension of quality. Among the . 8. Features are the "bells and whistles" of products. The smoothness and quietness of an automobile's ride. Whether performance differences are perceived as quality differences normally depends on individual preferences. 3. The connection between performance and quality. Quietness is therefore a performance dimension that readily translates into qual- In these terms. . These differences appear to reflect the conventions of the English language as much as they do personal preferences.. and comfort. depending on the objective characteristics of the good .30 Garvin product Quality 3. is more ambiguous. . their translation into quality differences is equally affected by individual preferences.. Aesthetics. while candlepower is not. for a television set. Durability.. Users typically have a wide range of interests and needs.s? All goods possess objective characteristics relevant to the choices which people make among different collections of goods. . Perceived ity. 6. Features The same approach can be applied to product features. and ability to receive distant stations. Each is self-contained and distinct. those secondary characteristics that supplement the product's basic functioning. 5. and the characteristics which it possesses is essentially a technical relationship. however. The connection between performance and quality is also affected by semantics. and automatic tuners on a color television set. is typically viewed as a direct reflection of its quality. Reliability. This dimension of quality combines elements of both the product and user-based approaches. 7. which refers to the primary operating characteristics of a product...

" and have used them extensively in modeling the production and consumption of capital goods. and so require rework or repair. a measure of product life. personal valuations of time and inconvenience. Two cornman measures are the incidence of service calls for a product and the frequency of repairs under warranty. Durability becomes the amount of use one gets from a product before it breaks down and replacement is regarded as preferable to continued repair. such as misspelled labels or shoddy construction. they must weigh the expected cost. and proxies are frequently used. therefore.>? Durability becomes more difficult to interpret when repair is possible. Then the concept takes on an added dimension. neglect other deviations from standard. Technically. Conformance A related dimension of quality is conformance. This approach to durability has two important implications. Durability Durability. and have used it to gain a competitive edge in the automotive. of future repairs against the investment and operating expenses of a newer. and the purchase of a new model will took that much more desirable. fall 1984 31 most common measures of reliability are the mean time to first failure (MTFF). and copying machine industries. conformance is commonly measured by the incidence of defects: the proportion of all units that fail to meet specifications. A product that fails frequently is likely to be scrapped earlier than one that is more reliable. semiconductor. losses due to downtime. as much as it is by the quality of components or materials. An increase in product life may not be due to technical improvements or to the use of longer-lived materials. data on conformance are often difficult to obtain. or the degree to which a product's design and operating characteristics match preestablished standards. Both internal and external elements are involved. durability can be defined as the amount of use one gets from a product before it physically deteriorates. while suggestive. it suggests that durability and reliability are closely linked. In the field. they are more relevant to durable goods than they are to products and services that are consumed instantly. repair costs will be correspondingly higher. relative prices. Repair is impossible. and the failure rate per unit time. relatively objective measures of quality. the underlying economic environment may simply have changed.31 Among the factors thought to be responsible . and other economic variables. has both economic and technical dimensions. More comprehensive measures of conformance are required if these items are to be counted. the expectecllife of an automobile has risen steadily over the last decade. First. Japanese manufacturers typically pay great attention to this dimension of quality. and are less likely to reflect individual preferences than are rankings based on performance or features. Consumers are faced with a series of choices: each time a product fails. 4. 5. Within the factory. more reliable model. and now averages fourteen years. For example. In these circumstances. a product's life is determined by repair costs. Economists call such products "one-hess shays. ----------. consumer electronics.28 Because these measures require a product to be in use for some period. in both dollars and personal inconvenience. the mean time between failures (MTBF). Both reliability and conformance are closely tied to the manufacturing-based approach to quality.Sloan Management Review ----."? Older automobiles are held for longer periods and have become a greater percentage of all cars in use. this approach suggests that durability figures should be interpreted with care. that do not lead to service or repair. Improvements in both measures are normally viewed as translating directly into quality gains because defects and field failures are regarded as undesirable by virtually all consumers. the filament burns up and the bulb must be replaced. They are. These measures. Second. for product life will vary with changing economic conditions. A light bulb provides the perfect example: after so many hours of use.

Because most consumers equate attached . and competence fact. these elements of serviceability are less subject to personal in.those combinations of product attributes about a product breaking down. they must standards of what constitutes acceptable ser. and federal regulations governing gas mileage. but also that best match the preferences of a specified about the elapsed time before service is re. and the fre."32 fessors around the country were asked to These comments clearly reflect subjective rank the departments in their fields by qualviews of what constitutes acceptable profes.32 Garvin Product Quality for these changes are rising gasoline prices and a weak economy. Serviceability A sixth dimension of quality is serviceabil.consumer .and affiliation . others reflect differing personal tion about a product's attributes. Responsive. service was provided in a careless.were equally important in exmore rapid repair and reduced downtime plaining the rankings.less. others reflect individual behavior. the eight major dimensions of with higher quality.number of articles published in leading ness is typically measured by the mean time journals by members of the department.v Together.is clearly matters of personal judgment. guarantee of twenty-four-hour (overnight) service in California and Arizona show that even top-of-the-line producers believe that this approach has value. while others shift with changing fashity. Perceived Quality quency with which service calls or repairs Perceptions of quality can be as subjective as fail to resolve outstanding problems. Because consumof these variables can be measured quite ob. Consumers are concerned not only . 6. environmental changes have been responsible for much of the reported increase in durability. tastes.comparing brands.the historical strength of the tence is reflected in the incidence of multiple department . Some are objective and timebegun emphasizing this dimension of qual.ers do not always possess complete informajectively.the quality service calls required to correct a single of the university to which a department was problem. A number of companies have preferences. feels.quality cover a broad range of concepts. while others are ascribed characteriswithin forty-eight hours and Mercedes' tics.advertising. In ity. Both aesthetics and perceived quality are closely related to the user-based approach. the marketing concept of "ideal points" of repair. or brand names. unprofes. In this case. while technical compe.ity. When proas an object rather than as an individual. a recent study of con.P appointments are kept. Some assessments of aesthetics. or smells . Aesthetics . Some are inherent characteristics of deliver repair parts anywhere in the world goods. Both to repair (MTTR). 7. . For example.frequently rely on indirect measures when vice. sounds.and reflections of individual preferences. Caterpillar Tractor's promise that it will ions. These forces sional manner" and that "I feel I was treated even affect scholarly judgments.was originally developed to stored.eral of the dimensions involve measurable tions of courtesy or standards of professional product attributes.8. the nature of their dealings with service personnel. the timeliness with which service capture just this dimension of quality. sumer satisfaction with professional services products will be evaluated less on their obfound the major complaints to be that "the jective characteristics than on their images. which have reduced the average number of miles driven per year. Sevterpretation than are those involving evalua. which have resulted in a reduction in the size of new models and an increase in the attractiveness to many consumers of retaining older cars. Aesthetics The final two dimensions of quality are the most subjective. their rankings were only partially exsional behavior. or the speed.how a product looks. courtesy. Other aspects of service can plained by such objective measures as the be assessed more objectively.reputation .>' In these circumstances.

and different tasks are cessfully pursue a relatively narrow quality required for success.w Each and the manufacturing-based approach fo. and each dimension is relatively short time. The managerial impliniche.for their even voicing (the evenness of ditional approaches to quality.viceability requires a strong customer serbiles have corne to symbolize the very best in vice department and active field represenquality for many American consumers.only a first step. one of Yamaha's major The Strategic Importance of Quality selling points is that all of its pianos sound Dimensions A recognition of these eight dimensions is exactly the same.to design and a strong design staff. rather than artistry and uniqueness. the user-based approach fo. wrong tasks pursued.eight notes on the keyboard).enjoys the lead role. they may have no other choice cations of this analysis should be obvious: after selecting the dimensions of quality on if competitors have already established broad reputations for excellence. tatives.emphasizing reliability and conformance. however. features. however. markets by emphasizing the reliability and High performance requires careful attention conformance of their products while down. Operational requirements cial attention. Despite these advantages. In these which it hopes to compete.Steinway has recently been challenged by ble because each defines quality from a dif. its instruments are known explain the differences among the five tra. quality can do so in several ways. what are less frequently recognized ing departments. superior conformance reare their poor safety records (performance) quires attention to written specifications and and low corrosion resistance (durability). their long lives. and exceptional serDespite these drawbacks. or the quality. The a segmentation strategy can be followed. Con. the sources of dis. Once the concept is developed a strong reputation for quality in a unbundled. and each is unique in cuses on conformance and reliability. selection of a defensible niche. In fact. for each dimension of qualufacturers have traditionally entered U. two dimensions of quality that are Iowan agreement become clear. the sweetness ent dimension of quality.piano is handcrafted. The durability requires the use of long-lived or superior "fits and finishes" and low repair "derated" components and close cooperarates of Japanese automobiles are well tion between the engineering and purchasknown. Steinway's list. of tone throughout the piano's entire range). flicts among the five approaches are inevita. and durability. the wrong defocus on an as yet untapped dimension of partments may be elevated in status. In each case.must also be met. Instead.S. despite their widely varying apthat chooses to compete on the basis of proaches to quality. Otherwise. it need not This example suggests the importance of pursue all eight dimensions at once. Japanese automo. ity imposes its own demands on the firm. the product-based of their registers (the roundness and softness approach focuses on performance. Both companies enjoy high also important for strategic purposes. new entrants may only be its organization and operations to meet these able to secure a defensible position if they specific needs. is with a few dimensions Singled out for spe. For many years. a Japanese manufacturer that has ferent point of view. carefully targeting one's quality niche. Japanese man.the duration of their tone. Yamaha has done so by considered separately. For example.Yamaha. a different function This example suggests that firms can suc. a firm must tailor circumstances. Each of the character and timbre of each of the eightyapproaches focuses implicitly on a differ.Sloan Management Review Fall 1984 33 The diversity of these concepts helps to the quality leader. and their finely polished woodwork. superior playing the other dimensions of quality. precision in assembly. Stein way & Sons has been point these operating requirements as care- . A firm profits. In fact. cuses on aesthetics and perceived quality. Disaggregating the concept of quality allows companies to pinThis pattern clearly fits the piano industry.sound and style.

On the one hand.P" This assumes. If they do not. If higher quality can only be produced at higher cost. Nelson then argued that for experience goods.s" As Riesz points out.the strong pricequality association of the earlier bivariate research weakens or disappears. therefore.t? tween price and quality (with quality measured by Consumer Report rankings. The cut and fit of an article of clothing are examples of product characteristics that can be learned through search. quality assessment is guided less by price than by the other variables present. they will rely on other cues when making that assessment. however.. they may set higher prices in order to imply higher product quality.. When market data were used. Price." In these circumstances. "The Buying Consumer: Room Air Conditioners. in the more sophisticated experimental studies. which typically focus on product performance). that consumers possess sufficient information to evaluate product quality. then quality and price will move together. This relationship breaks down.A similar study. then. costs. advertising. is equivocal. higher levels of advertising would be associated The theory. however. Quality and price mayor may not be positively correlated..34 "-"-----"---"---"-- Garvin -----"---" Product Quality ---- fully as they target untapped Correlates of Quality markets. and if costs and prices are.. in addition to price ." found that 85 percent of all buyers rated the product information available to them as adequate or more than adequate. store image. while those of the latter can only be learned after the product has been purchased and used. Nondurables generally displayed a weak or negative correlation be- . quality and price are assumed to be positively correlated. may become a means of differentiating a product . Quality and Price The theoretical argument about the relationship between quality and price runs in both directions. Managers are interested in quality primarily because of its marketing and financial implications. Many believe that a product's price. The empirical results are equally mixed. Where multiple cues are present for inferring quality . and profitability are connected in some way to product quality. Westbrook et a1. The attributes of the former can be determined prior to purchase. however. product features. they may then respond by readjusting prices: If managers believe that perceptions and perhaps consumer purchase decisions are positively correlated with price.t.. would likely result in a deterioration of the price-quality relationship within a product categoty. or country of manufacture. a positive correlation between price and quality is to be expected.v' Where information of this kind is available. while durables showed a significant positive correlation.sv These studies.brand name. market share.sv Nelson first introduced the distinction between "search" and "experience" goods. once managers observe this behavior. including comparative prices. found that 86 percent of recent purchasers and 75 percent of prospective buyers felt that they had no difficulty judging the quality or reliability of competing brands. as economic theory suggests. Quality and Advertising The theoretical argument for a positive association between quality and advertising was initially developed by Phillip Nelsonr" A more formal modeling was later pursued by Richard Schmalensee. the results differed by product category. the reliability and durability of a major home appliance are examples of traits that can be learned only through experience. A number of studies have found a positive correlation between the two variables. depending on the amount of information available to consumers. Such pricing strategies . were based primarily on experimental evidence rather than on market data. positively related." The findings for durables are broadly consistent with research on the purchase decision for major home appliances. The following section of the article explores the theory and evidence in each of these areas.

not the claims it makes. 50 Quality and Market Share The relationship between quality and market share is likely to depend on how quality is defined._--_.. who expanded on the earlier studies by using a variety of different measures of both advertising expenditures and brand quality. concluded that: "Advertised products are apparently of better quality than nonadvertised goods for some products. superior aesthetics. Analysts using both American and British data have found some evidence of a positive relationship between advertising and product quality (with quality again measured by Consumer Reports or Consumers' Bulletin rankings)."? The evidence on this point is inconclusive.. Fall 1904 . not supported by the available evidence. durability. after reviewing the research on this topic. Thus. Schmalensee has summarized this argument succinctly: High-quality brands will obtain more repeat purchases._--_. therefore. sellers of high-quality brands will spend more to persuade consumers to try their wares. following the product-based approach. but these results have been undercut by other studies. high quality need not be accompanied by premium prices._. and three times as rapidly as those whose relative quality remained unchanged. or other product attributes that require more expensive components or materials. "49 While these studies have involved both search and experience goods. additional labor hours in construction.. or other commitments of tangible resources. reached a similar conclusion: "A heavily advertised product is just as likely to be poor quality as any other." Using these indexes. . --- .. features. Those businesses in the PIMS study that improved in quality during the 1970s increased their market share five or six times faster than those that declined in quality. This view dominates much . Rotfel d and Rozell.s! All studies have. when rated by certain criteria. Quality information is provided by the level of advertising. or improved conformance. since ceteris paribus again... Nelson's claim that heavy advertising implies superior quality is. In that case. Quality and Cost Theoretical discussions of the relationship between quality and cost fall into three distinct categories. the present value of a trial purchase is larger. used the same. In fact. Sloan Management Review __ __ . in some years .. Nelson contends that this force causes better brands to advertise more in equilibrium as long as consumers respond to advertising at all. it will generally be more expensive. But no broad generalizations can be made. Each company in the PIMS survey was first asked the following questions: What was the percentage of sales of products or services from each business in each year which were superior to those of competitors? What was the percentage of equivalent products? What was the percentage of inferior products? Quality indexes were then compiled for each firm by subtracting its percentage "inferior" from its percentage "superior. argues that quality and direct cost are positively related. But if quality is defined as fitness for use. therefore. Virtually all empirical work on this topic has employed the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) data base.sCross-sectional studies using both bivariate= and multivariate methcds=' have confirmed the positive association between quality and market share. ceteris paribus. analysts have found a strong positive association between quality and market share. "48 Gilligan and Holmes. in a recent survey of consumer attitudes the majority of respondents felt that advertised products were no more likely to be dependable than were products without advertising. ------ 35 with higher quality products. If a high-quality product is one with superior performance or a large number of features. the level of advertising for experience goods is thus positively correlated with quality. The implicit assumption here is that quality differences reflect variations in performance. One group. the same conclusions apply if the analysis is limited to goods in the latter category. and will sell in smaller volumes. highly aggregated measure of quality. regardless of what individual ads actually claim.. than low-quality brands. quality and market share are likely to be positively correlated.

and external failures (e. 59 While the evidence is limited. In practice. approximately one-half were spending less than 10 percent. For example.. as companies with the poorest quality. and warranty expenses.B percent of sales.g. A number of analysts have extended this argument.g. scrap. most empirical work suggests that superior conformance and total quality costs are inversely related. Gilmore found that at least one-quarter of the companies he surveyed were spending less than 5 percent of their quality costs on prevention. Quality improvements are also expected to lead to further savings. warranty and product liability). these costs would include such hidden elements as the expense of carrying excess raw materials and work-in-process inventory to insure that defective items do not shut down the production process. these provide additional support for the above relationships. averaged total costs of quality that were 1. product inspection and testing).which most analysts associate with superior quality management and low failure rates'< . the amount that companies are spending to prevent quality problems and. Garvin. when measured by units produced per man-hour of assembly-line direct labor.3 percent of sales. and supplier education).S. to insure lower failure rates . found that companies with formal systems for assessing quality costs . companies with the highest quality were five times as productive.S. According to this view. worker training. claiming that improved conformance should eventually lead to a reduction in long-term manufacturing costs. in the form of experiencebased scale economies.v? The best American companies averaged rework.55 Quality costs are defined as any expenditure on manufacturing or service in excess of that which would have been incurred if the product had been built exactly right the first time. therefore. as well as the cost of owning and operating excess capacity in order to compensate for machine clogging and downtime. which draws on the operations management literature.. Several surveys have collected more comprehensive data on the costs of quality.P His conclusion was that greater expenditures on prevention would result in improved conformance and . found that Japanese manufacturers. internal failures (e. At the U. with defect and field failure rates between fifteen and seventy times lower than U.. scrap. sees quality and cost as inversely related because the costs of improving quality are thought to be less than the resulting savings in rework.36 Garvin Product Quality American thinking on the subject.8 percent of sales. Investments in machinery and equipment should result in more consistent production as well as improvements in worker productivity. Companies in the former group averaged quality costs that were 5.8 percent of sales. A 1977 survey. Total quality costs typically include expenditures in the following four categorles=" prevention (e.g.g. through their impact on market share and (cumulative) production levels. U. even though firms employed similar technologies and showed few differences in capital intensity. and warranty costs that alone were 2. for example. competitors.56 In their most comprehensive form.S. 58 One justification for this claim has been the expected link between quality improvement and productivity gains. in a study of the room air conditioning industry. quality planning. simplified and easy-to-assemble designs should require fewer workers at the same time that they reduce defects.s> Moreover. scrap. these costs exceeded 5. A second view. those in the latter. and warranty costs that alone were 7." quality is synonymous with the absence of defects.8 percent of sales. less inclusive measures are usually employed.had lower total costs of quality than companies without such systems. rework and scrap). appraisal (e. In this industry. Garvin also found that quality and productivity were positively related.may very well be suboptimal. rework. for example. and the costs in question are quality costS.. firms with the poorest quality. which is widely held among Japanese manufacturers and explains much of their dedication to the goal of "continuous improvement.

etc.) Increased Market Experience-based Scale Economies f-+ Shure II. the experi- ence curve effect. Reliability. increases in cumulative production. Improved Reputation for Quality (due to increased advertising. or the other dimensions or quality discussed earlier. in turn. The results have varied considerably by industry. Market Improved Features. In one study. etc. the two were positively related in capital goods businessesbut negatively related in components and supplies businesses. were likely to produce an overall reduction in the total costs of quality because of significant savings in rework.w' The varying results of these studies rnav reflect differences in the definitions or quality used by firms in different industries. in turn. different industries could be employing diffurnnt definitions when assessing the quality of their products. Thu PIMS quality index is highly aggregated: no distinction is made among performance. and warranty. expnrience-based reductions in costs. and eventually. The PIMS data base has generally been used to examine the relationship between quality and direct cost.Sloan Management Review Fall 1984 37 Figure 1 Quality and Profitability I. Gains Performance. scrap.s+ In another study.1 fewer defects. these. were found in all types of businesses. This. reliability. with high quality leuding to high market share. As H result. quality and direct cost were positively related for differentiated-product businesses but negatively related for homogeneous products. features.s" However. Cost Savings Increased Productivity Lower Manufacturing Costs Improved Reliability or Conformance Lower Rework and Scrap Costs Lawn!' Service Costs Lower Warranty and Product Liability Costs '-----. would doter- .

For example. well supported by the evidence. or alternatively.. or other dimensions of quality lead to increased sales and larger market shares.5 percent. quality is likely to be equated with performance or features. Those studies that have equated quality with conformance.38 Garvin Product Quality mine whether the relationship between quality and direct cost was positive or negative. They have not. and still fewer. The second linkage described in Figure 1 is less firmly established. "67 Such a conformance-based view of quality is likely to result in an inverse relationship between quality and direct cost. among homogeneous product businesses (e. have found an inverse relationship between the two. features. These findings suggest a number of directions for future research.g. therefore. also lead to experience-based cost savings and further gains in profitability. for example. those with inferior product quality averaged an ROI of 4. Similarly. Few unambiguous results are found in the literature. Much of the empirical research on the correlates of quality needs to be replicated with these distinctions in mind. however. however. Directions for Future Research There is a clear need for more precise measures of product quality. . Among differentiated and capital goods businesses. quality is often defined as "meeting specifications. by increasing share. 71 The market-based link between quality and profitability is. Quality and Profitability Figure 1shows two ways in which improved quality might lead to higher profitability. then. higher profits will result. and direct cost is both complex and difficult to predict. the relationship between quality and cost depends on how the terms are defined. suggesting a positive association between quality and direct cost. carried the analysis a step further to find if profitability was similarly affected.4 percent. Even where the expected relationships have emerged. While these inferences are consistent with the PIMS findings. chemicals). analysts need to determine if the various dimensions of quality move together or separately.?? Quality improvements. which would clearly affect the relationship between quality and ROI. further work is required because of the highly aggregated nature of the quality measures that have been employed. The empirical research on quality. The first route is through the market: improvements in performance. for otherwise. Few studies have recognized the multiple dimensions of quality. as long as these gains exceed any increase in expenditures by the firm on defect prevention. and those with superior product quality an ROI of 17. for they have all employed the PIMS data base. profitability will improve. Nor have the studies focusing on the connection between quality and direct cost taken into account differences in investment levels or capital costs. they require further research in order to be verified. The relationship between quality and such variables as price.4 percent. As an earlier discussion has shown. advertising. those with average product quality an ROl of 10. managers will be unable to position their companies to exploit particular quality niches. with few clear directions for managers. to less elastic demand and higher prices. the possibility that quality may have different meanings in different industries. 68 Quality improvements may also affect profitability through the cost side. If the cost of achieving these gains is outweighed by the increases in contribution received by the firm.s? High quality produces a higher return on investment (ROI) for any given market share: among businesses with less than 12 percent of the market. and cost with total quality cost. This is especially true of the studies relating quality to market share and profitability. Fewer defects or field failures result in lower manufacturing and service costs. has produced mixed results. Empirical studies using the PIMS data base confirm the strong positive association between quality and profltability.

--------------- Sloan Management Review --- _. for many consumers "quality is more than [simply] making a good product. Managers must learn to think carefully about how their approach to quality changes as a product moves from design to market. Japanese manufacturers. and profitability improvements can hardly be far behind. and anyone goal could only be achieved at the expense of others. analysts have argued that manufacturing operations could only be effective if they pursued a limited set of objectives. and the relative importance of the various dimensions of quality in shaping buyer behavior. 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. high quality. flexibility. These distinctions are more than just theoretical niceties: they are the key to using quality as a competitive weapon._-----. for many traditional assumptions no longer apply. It is also the source of great confusion: managers .frequently fail to communicate precisely what they mean by the term. flexibility to volume changes. and must devise ways to cultivate these multiple perspectives. cost savings. and delivery must be better understood. has found that indexes of consumer satisfaction based on voiced complaints."? 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. however. which of the dimensions of quality are primarily a reflection of manufacturing skills. . have succeeded in producing products that meet the twin objectives of high quality (conformance and reliability) and low cost. or is that more a reflection of how the assembly process is managed? More generally. often requires the use of sturdy and oversized components. Traditionally. rapid delivery. Once these approaches have been adopted. and has emphasized a number of critical dimensions."73 A second possible line of research would focus on manufacturing tradeoff's.?" This area clearly warrants further research. and flexibility to new product introductions were thought to be mutually incompatible. Tradeoffs were unavoidable. Do the different dimensions of quality require different forms of expertise. for example. and satisfaction after initial problems have been resolved are not well correlated. Andreasen. and an inability to show real progress on the quality front.particularly those in different functions . The first would focus on the determinants of consumer satisfaction. markets must be closely examined for any untapped quality niches. satisfaction immediately after purchase. Their ability to do so has forced analysts to reconsider the concept of manufacturing tradeoffs. This article has identified several different perspectives on quality. and the organization must be tailored to support the desired focus. Tradeoffs among the various dimensions of quality and between these dimensions and the objectives of cost. for example. objective measures of product nonperformance.------_-_. market share gains. As Takeuchi and Quelch point out.t" Low cost.__ ---Fall 1984 -------- _-_--- 39 These questions suggest two possible avenues of research. consumer perceptions of quality. Conclusion Quality is a complex and multifaceted concept. or are firms likely to succeed on several dimensions at once? Durability. Attention must be focused on the separate dimensions of quality. The result is often endless debate. does it also guarantee superior reliability.

Consumerism. p. J." New York Times." J 0 U I'll a I of Consumer Research." American Economic Review (March 1969): 102-107. Kotler. February 1953. H. Dorfman and P. I would also like to thank the Division of Research at the Harvard Business School for its financial support. 2 See: Abbott (1955). pp. and Government Relations. B. Schmalensee. D. Srinivasan. Kuehn and R. 10 See: Kuehn and Day (November-December 1962). Kantrow. Inc." Southern Economic Journal (April 1982): 85G. A. and Efficiency (New Columbia University Press. Lancaster. B." Quality Progress. The Portable Plata (New York: The Viking Press. 9 May 1980. M." American Economic Review (December 1970): 884-894. Chamberlin. Miller. pp. John Quelch. R. Dickie. 3 See: D. M. Center for Policy Alternatives. 4 See: C. pp. Swan. Day. Saving." Quarterly Journal of Economics. pp. A.. "Ambiguous Changes in Product Quality. 129. M. A. Boston University.Marketing Decision Making: A Model BuildingApproach (New York: Holt. "Quality Variation When Prices Are Regulated. A. R.Aesthetics: An Introduction (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. D. September 1975. Price Indexes and Quality Change [Cambridge. 13-18. November-December 1962. Abbott. Abernathy. Quality and Competition See: E. 122. pp.. K. "The New Economic Theory of Consumer Behavior: An Interpretive Essay. in press. and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. "Japanese Quality Management. 582-586. Leffler. 1979). "The Durability of Goods and the Regulation of Monopoly. 1971). Lancaster. K. York: 8 See: Barksdale et al. MA: School of Management." Columbia Journa Iof World Business. Service Contracts. members of the Production and Operations Management area at the Harvard Business School. "The Decline of Quality. The 1983 Manufacturing Futures Project: Summary of North American Survey Responses & Preliminary Report (Boston. Clark. 1971). Pirsig. 100-110. L." American Economic Review (December 1982): 956-967. P. Z. K. Ratchford. 6 11 See: (New York: Columbia University Press. Variety. Johnson. 71-86. 1983). Buchanen. Swan. 17 February 1983. "Quality on the Line. 36-39. "The Product as an Economic Variable. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintemmce (New York: Bantam Books. See: R.." Journal of Marketing Rese(] rch. 1971). White. February 1971. 9 See J. 28. Rinehart arrd Winston. "Perilous Times for U. L. Microcircuit Makers. pp." Bell Journal of Economics and Manngelnent Science (Spring 1970): 54-64. pp. December 1978. p. G. P. Consumer Demand: A New Approach (New York: Columbia University Press. 1978). L. O. "Optimal AdvertiSing Optimal Quality. D." Quolity Progress. "A Cross-National Survey of Consumer Attitudes Towards Marketing Practices. MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1955).40 Garvin Product Quality I would like to thank Ken Goodpaster. "Rising Concern on Cansumer Issues Is Found in Harris Poll." Harvard Business Review. P. pp. pp. MA: Harvard University Press. R. 3-127-3-146. "Market Organization and Product Quality. B. Garvin. and . G. Industrial Renaissance (New York: Basic Books. "Japanese and Western Quality: A Contrast. L. J." Harvard Business Review. Garvin. Juran. J. Steiner.S. Edwards. T. and A." Science. W. 1971). "Strategy of Product Quality. ed. L. Equity. September-October 1983. A. Levhari and T. 5 See: S. Consumer Durables: Warranties." New York Times Magazine." ColumbinJournal afWorld Business. 2 November 1980. L. L. "Durability of Consumption Goods. M.. Summer 1982." Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science (Autumn 1972): 425--43 G. and Alternatives (Cambridge. R. 14. "Regulation and the Durability of Goods. 64--75. 1948). p." Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science (Autumn 1971): 347-357. 491-497. 1-29. 10-18. Griliches. N. B. "Market Segmentation: A Strategic Management Tool. 1983). References 1 7 See: W. Ted Levitt. 5. 65-75. pp. pp. October 1968." American Economic Review (December 1954): 822-836. Tuchman.p. ed. K. "Durability of Consumption Goods: Competition versus Monopoly. Robinson. p. "The Meaning of Quality. T. 1974).

J.. J. MA: Division of Research. Maynes. 127-137. Quality." in Household Production and Consumption. 1982). 14 See: E. ed. White (Autumn 1972). ed. PA: The Consumer Network Inc. 32 See J. April 1966. 1982). pp. J. pp. Quality Planning and Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill. 19 See: J. 14. 26 See: K.S. 30 See: P. Burch. 124-127. "The Concept and Measurement of Product Quality. George (Chicago. 22-26. Boehm. B. Sheshinski. Quality Control Handbook.181-182. "Price. :3 April 1983. Ash. ch. pp." Fortune. S. pp. April 1963. 29 See C. J. A. Lancaster (1979). 1976). May 1976. 3rd ed. [r. A. 10-13. Gryna.1. Campanella and F. 28 See Juran (1974). p.. 1975)._------<------- Sloan Management Review Fall 19B4 41 12 See: J. Total Quality Control (New York: McGraw-Hill. 20 See: R. "Principles of Quality Costs. "Consumer Satisfaction with Professional Services. chs. p. 8-9-8-32. 12-15. E. Graduate School of Business . 24 See Juran (1974). Ishikawa. and Quantity Regulation in a Monopoly Situation. Crosby (1979). Theil. pp. 6. Feigenbaum (1961). p. 3." Quality Progress. 7. 17 See: G. ed." Economica. 16 22 See The Consumer Network. ' 23 See K.. 33 See: Feigenbaum (1961). 132-157.. 1981). ch. PA: Rodale Press. M. Corcoran. Johnson (February 1971). ch. 2." Journal of Political Economy. N. M. H. Cox. 13 See: Edwards (October 1968). January 1984. 5. April 1983. May 1983. Lancaster. Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income (Amsterdam: North-Holland. 36-39. Bliss. pp. Principles of Econometrics (New York: John Wiley & Sons. 8-12. 1974).----_. 21 See: Broh (1982). ed.. The Durability Factor (Emmaus. June 1974. 1961).. p. Managing Quality for Higher Profits (New York: McGraw-Hill. 27 See Lancaster (1971). Feigenbaum. 2-4-2-9.186. (New York: McGraw-Hill." Quality Progress. Quality Is Free (New York: McGraw-Hill. Crosby. " 'Reliability' Engineering." New York Times. 18 See "Retiring Autos at 14. 1979). See: Kuehn and Day (November-December 1962). pp. Yepsen. p." Business Economics. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior (Boston. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory. ed. Brond Quolily Perceptions (Philadelphia. H." in Marketing of Services. sec. R. [r. ch. Broh. 556-573. Gilmore (june 1974). B. 550-554. Lancaster (1979). 31 See S. 1. "Quality and Standardization: Program for Economic Success. Juran. Gilmore. Harvard University. F. 16-19. M. W. IL: American Marketing Association. "Product Conformance Cost. 34 See: D.18. 21. pp. p. 1971). Lancaster (1971). 1980). Inc . Terleckyj (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. 15 See R.pp. pp. B." Quality Progress. H. 25 See E. pp. Auto Stock: Implications for Demand. Juran (1974). 28.. "The Aging U. Donnelly and W. A.184. August 1983). pp. Quelch and S. Juran and F. Juran (1974). 1. V.

R. D. "Price as an Indicator of Quality: Report on an Enquiry. January 1980. 35 See: W. Cost Position. Nelson. Rotzoll. Gilligan and D. Wiersema. J. 1:15-144.pp." Harvard Business Review. Chang. a 1981). Buzzell. "Price-Quality Correlations for Packaged Food Products.83-105. "Successful Share-Building Strategies. 485-486. 44 See Lambert (January 1980). p. Summer 1982. pp. 39 See Riesz (1979). W. p. "Concentration versus Market Share: Which Determines Performance and Why Does It Matter?" The Antitrust Bulletin.pp. P. A. February 1966. D." Journal of Business. T. A. D. Gale and B." Journal of Business. 144-150. and R. No. P." Economica." Journal of Political Economy (March-April 1970): 311-329. October 1968. R. and D." Journal of Political Economy (June 1978): 485-504." Harvard Business Review. R. p. p. Granger. Craig and S." Journal of Marketing. pp. October 1978. 43 See "The Buying Consumer: Room Air Conditioners. Gabor and C. 1.l0l-111. September 1976. "Advertising as Information. B. MA: Harvard Business School. Westbrook. W. Leavitt. Knudsen and T. pp. HBS Case Services #9-682-625. D. Lambert. "ANote on Some Experimental Findings about the Meanings of Price. Rotfeld and K. p. J. 48 See H. Winter 1979. ch. 234. pp. March-April 1974. Riesz. January-February 1981.205-210. (Summer 1902). D. F. July 1954. 54-60. Schmalensee. W. "Inputs. A. "Impact of Strategic Planning on Profit Performance. . 18. pp. pp." Strategic Management Journal. and J. 49 See C.5): 392. D. 1967). McConnell. pp." Sociology of Education. S. 50 See Barksdale et al. E. C. J. p. "Quality in Graduate Education: A Reevaluation of the Rankings of Sociology Departments in the Cartter Report. Hagstrom. Holmes. pp. Douglas. T. "Information and Consumer Behavior. 51 See: R. D. Taylor. 236.46. C." American Saciologist. 17. D. Buzzell." Journal of Consumer Affairs. 5. "Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction in the Purchase Decision Process.Sons (Boston." Economy Inquiry." report by Appliance Manufacturer (Chicago. 11." Quarterly Review of Economics and Business. 36 See Steinway &. 42 See R. R. IL: Cahners Publishing. See P. Buzzell and F. pp. 41 See Riesz (1979). B. 384-385.42 Garvin Product Quality Administration." Journal of Marketing.1981)' p. "Product Quality. Buzzell and F. 27-42. 1981. "Price as a Quality Signal: The Tip ofthe Iceberg. S. Spring 1983. Branch. Outputs. 52 See Buzzell and Wiersema (January-February 140. 38 See Lambert (January 1980). February 1969. 439-444." Management Decision (Vol. Schoeffler." Journal of Political Economy (July-August 1974): 729-754. S. 26-43. "Modeling Changes in Market Share: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. 1979). Fall 1971 . Nelson. Phillips. 46 See R. Vaughan. Newman. Wiersema. "Advertising Expenditure and Product Quality. 1. D. D. and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses. 43-70. O. J. D. "A Model of Advertising and Product Quality. Heany. pp. R. p. "Strategic Factors Associated with Market and Financial Performance. 78. 37 45 See: P. 244.. Spring 1982. "Advertising and Product Quality: Are Heavily Advertised Products Better?" Journal of Consumer Affairs. 47 Ibid. and the Prestige of American University Science Departments. pp. 137-145. "An Experimental Examination of the Price-Quality Relationship. J. 40 See: H.

Phillips. Wheelwright. Buzzel I. Craig and Douglas (Summer 1982). L. C. "A Taxonomy of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Measures. Crosby (197!l). Skinner. Skinner.p. 64 See Gale and Branch (Spring 1982). 67 See M. S. and Buzzell (Spring 198:1). Quelch. Gale and Branch (Spring 1982)' pp.pp. Chang. Phillips. Chang. 136-145." Quality Progress. pp. and Buzzell (Spring 1983). zs-as. Takeuchi and J. pp. July-August 1983. Dorfman and Steiner (December 1954). June 1977." Hurvru-d Business Review. pp. 62 See "Quality Cost Survey. 75 See Wheelwright (July-August 73 See Phillips. . and Buzzell (Spring 198:1). pp. end Heany (March-April p. pp. Winter 1977. Gilmore (June 1!l74). 69 See: Craig and Douglas (Summer 1982). 17. E. 59 71 See: Buzzell and Wiersema (January-February 1981). 65 See Phillips. 60 See Garvin (September-October 61 See Crosby (1979). and Buzzell (Spring 1983). Garvi n (in press). See H." JOUJ'11[JI of Consumer Affairs.141. Buzzell. 1983). 1. "Consumer Product Quality Cost Revisited. Chang. 96-97. 1974). pp. pp. S. 74 See: W. 57 See: Campanella and Corcoran (April 1911:l). 1974) ." Hnrv!ll'd Business Review. 20-22.8-12. 37. 56 See Campanella and Corcoran (April 1983) p. C. "Japan ." Quolity. 57-66. 1981). S. May-June 1974. 68 See: Chamberlin (February 1953). Prncncul Quolity Mn nugernent in the Chemical Process Industry (New York: Marcel Dekker.Sloan Management Review Fall 1984 43 53 See: Schoeffler." Management Review. and Buzzell (Spring 198i!). 198:1). Andreasen. 63 See: Gilmore (June 1974). February 1978. Buzzell. "Manufacturing . "Reflecting Corporale Strategy in Manufacturing Decisions.Where Operations Really Are Strategic. 139-145. p. See: R. Phillips. Bader. pp.. April1!l8:1." Business Horizons. "The Focused Factory. 51l 1974). :18-39. Schoeffler. and Heany (March-April 55 See: R.ch. October 1983. Wheelwright. 93-95. p. E. 70 See Schoeffler. "Quality Is More Than Making a Good Product. 70-71. Chang. Gilmore (April 198:J). "Improving Product Quality through Continuous Feedback. 11-24. 54 See: Buzzell and Wiersema (1981). pp. Kaplan. 27. and Heany (March-April 141. MayJune 1969. H." Horvnrd Business Review. Gilmore. A." Harvord Business Review. 72 See A. 66 Ibid.Missing Link in Corporate Strategy. R. "Measuring Manufacturing Performance: A New Challenge for Managerial Accounting Research." The Accounting Heview (October 1983): 686-705. Cole. W. July-August 1981. 1H-121.pp. Chang.