69 - Defining Quality Alternatives and Implications Academy of Management Review

Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications
Author(s): Carol A. Reeves and David A. Bednar

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, Special Issue: "Total Quality"
(Jul., 1994), pp. 419-445
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258934
Accessed: 09-10-2019 12:59 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258934?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 14.139.249.203 on Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:59:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
c Academy of Management Review
1994, Vol. 19, No. 3, 419-445.
DEFINING QUALITY: ALTERNATIVES

AND IMPLICATIONS
CAROL A. REEVES
University of Arkansas
DAVID A. BEDNAR
University of Arkansas
The search for a universal definition of quality has yielded inconsis-

tent results. Such a global definition does not exist; rather, different
definitions of quality are appropriate under different circumstances.
In this article, we trace the evolution of quality definitions and de-
scribe the trade-offs inherent in accepting one definition of quality
over another. The implications of using various definitions of quality
in future research also are discussed.
The concept of "quality" has been contemplated throughout history

and continues to be a topic of intense interest today. Quality presently is
addressed in numerous academic and trade publications, by the media,
and in training seminars; it is perhaps the most frequently repeated man-
tra among managers and executives in contemporary organizations. In a
recent survey, executives ranked the improvement of service and product
quality as the most critical challenge facing U.S. businesses (Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Quality has been described as "the single
most important force leading to the economic growth of companies in
international markets" (Feigenbaum, 1982: 22).
A search for the definition of quality has yielded inconsistent results.
Quality has been variously defined as value (Abbott, 1955; Feigenbaum,
1951), conformance to specifications (Gilmore, 1974; Levitt, 1972), confor-
mance to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for use (Juran, 1974, 1988),
loss avoidance (Taguchi, cited in Ross, 1989), and meeting and/or exceed-
ing customers' expectations (Gronroos, 1983; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry, 1985). Regardless of the time period or context in which quality is
examined, the concept has had multiple and often muddled definitions
and has been used to describe a wide variety of phenomena.
Continued inquiry and research about quality and quality-related
issues must be built upon a thorough understanding of differing defini-
tions of the construct. Universalistic propositions describing the relation-
ship among various variables and quality cannot be made when the
We wish to thank Frank Hoy, Cayce Lawrence, and two anonymous reviewers for th
helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
419
420 Academy of Management Review July
meaning of the dependent variable continually changes (Cameron &

Whetten, 1983). As we discuss, the literature linking quality to outcomes
such as market share, cost, and profits has yielded conflicting results that
are largely attributable to definitional difficulties. Increased understand-
ing of these important relationships will occur only when the quality
construct is more precisely defined.
In this article, we attempt to clarify and explicate definitions of qual-
ity by (a) tracing their history or "roots," (b) examining their strengths and
weaknesses, and (c) describing the trade-offs inherent in accepting one
definition of quality over another. We also discuss how theoretical rela-
tionships among variables change when different definitions are used,
and we suggest several implications for future research about the quality
construct.
ROOTS OF QUALITY DEFINITIONS
Quality is Excellence
Significant discussions about quality, or good, were initiated by Soc-

rates, Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers. The ideal to the
Greeks was arete, or "excellence." The definition of arete varied by its
context; for a racehorse, it was speed, for a cart, strength. For a man, it
connoted excellence in the ways a man can be excellent-morally, intel-
lectually, physically, practically (Kitto, 1951). Even though aret6 applied
to multiple phenomena, for Plato, aret6 was absolute. It was "the good,
the highest form, the highest idea of all" (Pirsig, 1974: 373).
Quality as excellence also has been debated recently. Tuchman
(1980: 38) argued that quality
means investment of the best skill and effort possible to pro-

duce the finest and most admirable results possible.... You
do it well or you do it half-well. . . . Quality is achieving or
reaching for the highest standard as against being satisfied
with the sloppy or fraudulent.... It does not allow compro-
mise with the second-rate.
In fields such as religion, music, sculpture, and painting, where judg-

ments are dominated by unique preferences, it may not be possible to
evaluate quality in anything other than abstract terms. Defining quality
as excellence means it is understood "ahead of definition ... as a direct
experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions" (Pirsig,
1992: 73).
Quality is Value
The practicality of defining quality as excellence in matters of com-

merce was called into question in the mid-1700s when Western business-
men began to target a wider market for their commercial goods. This
broader view of quality was founded on the belief that "the consumer was
1994 Reeves and Bednar 421
the ultimate arbiter of trade, and that business flourished by serving

consumer interests rather than guild interests.... The market was the
final judge" (Johnson, 1988: 286). Businesses began to produce cheaper,
inferior goods for a popular market, and quality was judged relative to
price. By the early 1800s, the decline of quality already was being la-
mented. De Tocqueville remarked, "When only the wealthy had watches
they were very good ones; few are now made that are worth much but
everyone has one in his pocket" (cited in Tuchman, 1980: 40).
Feigenbaum (1951: 1) contended that the notion of value had to be
included in any quality definition:
Quality does not have the popular meaning of "best" in any

absolute sense. It means "best for certain customer condi-
tions." These conditions are (a) the actual use and (b) the sell-
ing price of the product. Product quality cannot be thought of
apart from product cost.
Traditional economic models were based on the notion that price was
the primary determinant of consumer choice. By the 1950s, the role of
product quality began to appear in economic theory. Abbott (1955) argued
that by focusing solely on price competition, economists ignored a critical
component of consumers' decision processes-quality. Both price and
quality had to be considered in a competitive market.
When price tags are attached to ideas or services or products,

it is the best bargain that wins. How good a bargain anything
is depends upon both quality and price; these two elements
compounded together form the basis for evaluation of winning
contestants in the market place. Only when differences in
quality have been eliminated by standardization does "cheap-
est" necessarily coincide with "best." (Abbott, 1955: 108)
Feigenbaum and Abbott asserted that differentiation in levels of both

quality and price, or value, were important in consumers' decisions. Re-
searchers (Cronin & Taylor, 1992) have advanced the notion that purchas-
ing decisions may be influenced by convenience, availability, or price, as
well as by judgments of quality.
Quality is Conformance to Specifications
Before 1930. Throughout the 18th century, Europe was the world
leader in manufacturing and technology and achieved revolutionary ad-
vances in the production of textile equipment, machine tools, and steam
engines. European manufacturers, however, were not able to transfer
effectively these advantages to the production of mass-produced, multi-
component products such as firearms, clocks, and watches (Abernathy &
Corcoran, 1983).
From the 19th to mid-20th century, most advances in quality were
achieved in the United States. The impetus for quality improvements ini-
tially came from the Ordnance Department that sought mass-produced,
reliable armaments. The key to producing such armaments was the in-
terchangeability of machine-made parts. By 1850, the Ordnance Depart-
ment was able to produce reliably small arms with interchangeable parts
at the Springfield and Harper's Ferry armories. The crafts approach that
had been so dominant in Europe did not allow for quantity production,
leading major American firms such as Singer, Pope Bicycle, and McCor-
mick to adopt the "American system of manufacturing" (Hounshell, 1984).
The key to quality was conformance to specifications; if parts did not
conform to specifications, they would not be interchangeable, and the
production system would fail.
Henry Ford's passion for mass production led to even higher quality
standards and the wide-scale diffusion of the American system (Houn-
shell, 1984). Ford realized that if Ford Motor Company was to meet the
goal of producing a "car for the masses," interchangeability of parts had
to be stressed and handwork had to be minimized. He hired gifted me-
chanics who were allowed to experiment extensively to achieve the "ab-
solute interchangeability [that] would become imperative in high-volume
production" (Hounshell, 1984: 222). Accuracy in fixture and machine tools
was the primary requirement for Ford's production engineers. By 1913, the
machine tool industry was capable of manufacturing machines that could
turn out large quantities of consistently accurate work.
Post-1930. Many manufacturers sought to reduce the cost of the ex-
tensive inspections that were required to measure conformance. The first
and one of the most influential works on quality addressed this issue. The
1931 publication of Shewhart's Economic Control of Quality of Manufac-
tured Product provided the foundation for many of the principles of qual-
ity that are used today. Shewhart was part of a Bell engineering group
assigned to standardize the nationwide telephone network. To accom-
plish this task, Bell needed maximum quality information at a minimum
cost, creating the need for statistical quality control (Garvin, 1988).
Shewhart's first step in addressing the problem was to define quality.
To Shewhart, the prevailing view of quality as a measure of goodness
was too indefinite for practical purposes. Quality had to be quantifiable
if manufacturers were going to be able to use statistical procedures to
measure it. According to Shewhart,
We must define quality of product in such a way that the

numerical measure of this quality serves the following two
purposes:
1. To make it possible for one to see whether or not the quality
of product for a given period differs from that for some other
period taken as a basis of comparison.
2. To make possible the comparison of qualities of product for
two or more periods to determine whether or not the differ-
ences are greater than should be left to chance. (1931: 44)
Subjective quality was important, but standards could be established and

performance could be measured only for objective (quantitative) quality.
Thus, the task for the engineer was (a) to translate consumer wants into
the physical characteristics of the product and (b) "to set up ways and
means of obtaining a product which will differ from the arbitrarily set
standards for these quality characteristics by no more than may be left to
chance" (Shewhart, 1931: 54). These requirements led to the development
and use of process control charts and statistical sampling.
Juran's Quality Control Handbook (1951), an edited volume of quality-
control methods begun in 1945, expanded on Shewhart's work. Like
Shewhart, Juran began his volume by trying to clarify the definition of
quality. He separated quality into two components: quality of design and
quality of conformance. Quality of design relates to grade (i.e., a Cadillac
has more features than a Chevrolet, even though both serve the same
purpose). Quality of conformance concerns how well the product conforms
to design specifications. Thus, Juran incorporated the notions of both
excellence and conformance into his quality definition.
Quality is Meeting and/or Exceeding Customers' Expectations
The most pervasive definition of quality currently in use is the extent

to which a product or service meets and/or exceeds a customer's expec-
tations (Buzzell & Gale, 1987; Gronroos, 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1990). This
definition grew out of the services marketing literature (Lovelock, 1981;
Normann, 1984; Shostack, 1977; Zeithaml, 1981), wherein researchers ar-
gued that a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality failed to
address the unique characteristics of services. An important catalyst for
the widespread movement away from conformance to specifications and
toward a consumer-based definition of quality was the increasingly im-
portant role played by services in the U.S. and other Western economies.
The impact of services on definitions of quality. In 1900, only 3 out of
10 workers in the United States were employed in the service sector of the
economy. By 1950, the number of people employed in the goods-producing
and service sectors was approximately equal. By 1968, the service sector
accounted for 6 of 10 workers in the United States, and this number was
close to 8 in 10 by 1990 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1991). The movement to
a service economy has been equally dramatic in other Western countries.
From 1950 to 1980, the proportion of GNP accounted for by services in-
creased from 44 to 55 percent in Sweden and from 34 to 52 percent in
Finland. By 1980, 70 percent of all Swedish firms belonged to the service
sector (Gronroos, 1983).
The increased importance of the service sector led to changes in the
way the most prominent thinkers defined and approached quality. It is
instructive to look at the evolution of the definition of quality, and the
increased importance of service quality in that definition, during the four
decades and editions of Feigenbaum's Total Quality Control (1951, 1961,
1983, 1991) and Juran's Quality Control Handbook (1951, 1962, 1974, 1988).
Feigenbaum. In the first edition of Total Quality Control, Feigenbaum

defined quality as "best for certain customer conditions" (1951: 10), which
included end use and price. The entire book was devoted to developing
products to meet these conditions. The second edition repeated the "best
for certain customer conditions" definition given in the first edition but
added that product quality can be defined as "the composite of product
characteristics of engineering and manufacture that determine the de-
gree to which the product in use will meet the expectations of the cus-
tomer" (Feigenbaum, 1961: 13). Once again, services were not explicitly
addressed.
In the third edition, Feigenbaum (1983) explicitly recognized the im-
portance of services and added them to the quality definition. He stated
that productut and service quality can be defined as the total composite
product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering, manufac-
turing, and maintenance through which the product and service in use
will meet the expectations of the customer" (1983: 7, emphasis added).
Even with the inclusion of services and marketing in this definition of
quality, the book barely addresses service issues elsewhere; fewer than
30 of the 821 pages are applicable directly to services. All of Feigenbaum's
examples, terminology, and techniques are based on the production of
tangible goods. Because services were becoming more "professionalized
and mechanized," Feigenbaum argued that total quality control applica-
tions in services were similar to those in manufacturing.
Feigenbaum's 1983 definition of quality remained verbatim in the
1991 volume. The major change to this 40th anniversary edition was the
addition of 12 pages regarding the quality imperative in a global econ-
omy. Although the book continued to focus on product quality (more than
800 of the 841 pages were devoted to it), service quality assumed a prom-
inent role in these 12 pages.
Juran. Juran separated quality into quality of design (grade) and
quality of conformance in the first edition of his Quality Control Handbook
(1951). The second edition (1962) included the most extensive examination
of the definition of quality to that date. Juran identified eight primary uses
of the term in industry:
1. Marketplace quality-the degree to which a specific prod-

uct satisfies the wants of a specific consumer.
2. Quality of design-the degree to which a class of products
possesses potential satisfaction for people generally.
3. Quality of conformance the degree to which a specific
product conforms to a design or specification.
4. Consumer preference the degree to which a specific prod-
uct is preferred over competing products of equivalent
grade, based on comparative tests by consumers.
5. Quality characteristic-a distinguishing feature of a grade
or product (i.e., appearance, performance, length of life,
dependability, reliability, durability, maintainability,
tastes, odor, etc.).
6. A vague expression of general excellence but without be-

ing specific enough to be classified.
7. The name of a function or responsibility in industry, related
to achievement of quality of product.
8. The name of a specific department in a company. (Juran,
1962: 1, emphasis added)
For Juran, marketplace quality, the ability of a product to satisfy custom

wants, was the most fundamental definition for industry; it was pursued
by establishing the standards that must be met to satisfy a customer's
needs.
In the 1974 edition of his book, Juran introduced a widely used defi-
nition of quality, "fitness for use," which he described as the extent to
which a product successfully serves the purposes of the user (1974: 2-2).
Juran argued that this was a universal concept, applicable to both man-
ufacturing and services, but he recognized additional difficulties posed
by services. "For internal conformance, the measures of quality have
much in common with the well-known measures widely used in control of
manufacturing process. Measure of external conformance is more com-
plex, owing to the abstract nature of some of the qualities and the sub-
jective reactions of consumers" (Juran & Bingham, 1974: 47-8). Juran de-
voted two chapters of this edition to services, and he devoted 18 chapters
to specific manufacturing industries, such as metals, plastic molding,
and electronic components. Unlike Feigenbaum, however, Juran made an
effort to incorporate services into the 28 chapters of the book, which cov-
ered general quality-control techniques.
The fourth edition of Juran's handbook (1988) retained the "fitness-for-
use" definition of quality and criticized the multiple meanings that had
come to be associated with quality. Although quality was defined by
many researchers as conformance to a standard (e.g., specifications, pro-
cedures, or requirements), Juran found this definition incomplete. "For the
company, the definition should be stated in terms of (1) meeting customer
needs, and (2) freedom from deficiencies" (1988: 2-3). Juran expanded the
conceptualization of the customer to include the needs of the internal
customer, whose needs must also be met.
Contributions of the marketing literature. To varying degrees,
Shewhart, Juran, and Feigenbaum discussed the importance of customer
wants, but they gave little practical advice on how to assess wants so
that appropriate product/service specifications could be established.
Marketing scholars (Bayton, 1958; Kuehn & Day, 1962) began to address
this issue in the late 1950s and early 1960s through the use of preference
testing. Preference testing made it possible for manufacturers to gain
some appreciation for how quality was defined by the customer. Quality
no longer had to be measured solely "in terms of the purity or grade of
materials used, the technical perfection of design, and exacting stan-
dards of production" (Kuehn & Day, 1962: 100). Although unsophisticated
by today's standards, preference testing was an important first step in
bringing more objectively derived customer wants into the definition of

quality.
Marketers (Bucklin, 1963; Cardozo, 1965) continued their efforts
throughout the 1960s to identify the wants of customers. Their work initi-
ated additional attempts to understand and define quality in both man-
ufacturing and service organizations, and they tried to develop methods
for assessing accurately the preferences and wants of customers. How-
ever, even if, conceptually, the importance of the consumer had been
recognized, in practice, the literature on quality was dominated by infor-
mation on tools that could be used to maximize conformance to specifi-
cations (Boehm, 1963; Deming, 1982, 1986; Feigenbaum, 1951, 1961, 1983;
Harris & Chaney, 1969; Ishikawa, 1985, 1986; Juran, 1951, 1962, 1974).
An active debate regarding the appropriateness of applying manu-
facturing quality-control techniques, based on a conformance-to-
specifications definition of quality, to services occurred in the late 1960s,
1970s, and 1980s (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Bowen & Schneider, 1988; Gron-
roos, 1983; Haywood-Farmer, Alleyne, Duffus, & Downing, 1985; Judd,
1968; King, 1984, 1985; Levitt, 1972, 1976; Lovelock, 1981; Normann, 1984;
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Sasser, Olsen, & Wyckoff, 1978; Scanlon &
Hagan, 1983; Shostack, 1977; Thomas, 1978; Williams & Zigli, 1987; Zeit-
haml, 1981). Judd (1968) argued that, although services and products
shared many similarities, substantial differences also existed between
them. Given these differences, Judd called for a reexamination of the
"implicit assumption that there is a similarity of service marketing to
product marketing" (1968: 1).
Services have been differentiated from products in a number of ways.
They are primarily intangible (Judd, 1964; Mills & Margulies, 1980; Regan,
1963; Sasser et al., 1978; Shostack, 1977; Wilson, 1972), making it impos-
sible to stock services in the same way one would stock goods, and their
attributes are difficult to demonstrate. To a large extent, services are
simultaneously produced and consumed (Regan, 1963; Sasser et al., 1978;
Shostack, 1977); consequently, firms cannot use inventories to manage
fluctuations in demand. Customer involvement in the production of many
services (Bowen & Schneider, 1988; Chase & Tansik, 1983; Collier, 1983;
Haywood-Farmer et al., 1985; Mills & Margulies, 1980; Shetty & Ross, 1985)
creates additional quality-control difficulties for managers. Services also
are considered to be extremely perishable (Regan, 1963; Sasser et al.,
1978) and to be a process rather than a thing (Gronroos, 1983; Shostack,
1977). (See Bowen & Schneider, 1988, for an in-depth treatment of these
issues.)
In a controversial article that provoked an intense debate, Levitt
(1972) argued that the failure of service firms to achieve high quality
occurred because of their reluctance to adopt manufacturing techniques.
"To improve the quality and efficiency of service, companies must apply
the kind of technocratic thinking which in other fields has replaced the
high cost and erratic elegance of the artisan with the low-cost predictable
munificence of the manufacturer" (1972: 43). For Levitt, the essence of

quality was consistency. To the extent possible, all discretion should be
removed from employees, because "discretion is the enemy of order, stan-
dardization, and quality" (1972: 44, emphasis added).
Shostack (1977: 73) countered Levitt by asking, "Could marketing be
'myopic' in having failed to create relevant paradigms for the service
sector?" Shostack criticized the marketing literature for blindly applying
product-based principles to services, which she viewed as substantively
different because of their intangibility. A tangible object lends itself to
precise and quantifiable measurement that cannot be duplicated in ser-
vices because "they cannot be touched, tried on for size, or displayed on
a shelf. They are exceedingly difficult to quantify" (Shostack, 1977: 75).
Although Shostack's article did not explicitly address quality issues, it
was used as a foundation in many subsequent studies by authors who
argued against the applicability of quantifiable quality-control tech-
niques in services.
Quality defined from the customer's viewpoint. The increasingly im-
portant role played by services and the inability of researchers to apply
traditional manufacturing definitions to service quality led to a new con-
ceptualization of service quality. Only one definition of quality was
judged to be appropriate by service scholars (Gronroos, 1983; Parasura-
man et al., 1985), and that definition was governed by the extent to which
a service met the expectations of customers. "Only customers judge qual-
ity; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant" (Zeithaml et al., 1990).
Gronroos (1990: 37) argued that "it should always be remembered that
what counts is quality as it is perceived by the customers." Service schol-
ars were not the only advocates of a customer-oriented definition of qual-
ity. The profit impact of market strategy (PIMS) program database, which
is primarily composed of manufacturing firms, also uses this approach to
quality: "Quality is whatever the customers say it is, and the quality of a
particular product or service is whatever the customer perceives it to be"
(Buzzell & Gale, 1987: 111). Although most operations management schol-
ars continue to focus on a conformance-to-specifications definition of
quality, the meeting-and/or-exceeding expectations definition of quality
is now widely accepted.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY

An essential building block for theory development about quality is
an understanding of extant definitions and their origins. Different defini-
tions of quality have been proposed at various times in response to the
evolving and constantly changing demands of business. New definitions
have not replaced old definitions; rather, all of the quality definitions
continue to be used today. No one definition of quality is "best" in every
situation because each definition has both strengths and weaknesses in
relation to criteria such as measurement and generalizability, managerial
usefulness, and consumer relevance. By examining these strengths and

weaknesses, the trade-offs among the various definitions can be identi-
fied.
Quality is Excellence
Strengths. Striving for and producing an excellent product or service

provides strong marketing and human resource benefits. An organiza-
tional vision based upon providing the "best" may be easier to articulate
than one aimed at providing value for the customer. Gaining employees'
acceptance of and commitment to such a vision also may be easier. Cus-
tomers frequently take pride in owning an excellent product or receiving
excellent service. Excellence often is the basis for advertising campaigns
in industries such as automobiles (e.g., Mercedes, BMW, and Cadillac),
liquor (e.g., Chivas Regal and Crown Royal), and airlines (Singapore
Airlines and British Air). Customers using these firms' product or service
are promised that they will be the envy of others who have made less
well-thought-out choices.
Advocates for the definition of quality as excellence claim that qual-
ity is "both absolute and universally recognizable, a mark of uncompro-
mising standards and high achievement" (Garvin, 1984: 25). By defining
quality as value or conformance to specifications or meeting and/or ex-
ceeding expectations, quality may lose its meaning. Although articulat-
ing precisely what excellence is may be impossible, proponents of the
quality-as-excellence definition argue that at least the term is not mis-
used to describe objects that definitely do not represent quality (Tuch-
man, 1980). A romance novel may represent a good entertainment value,
may conform to the production specifications, and may exceed customers'
expectations for the genre, but can it be claimed to be a quality product
when compared to a great work of literature that endures through the
ages? Unless only those products and services that achieve the highest
standards are accorded the title of quality, quality represents little more
than an individual judgment of a product's or service's attributes.
Weaknesses. Defining quality as excellence offers little practical
guidance to managers. How does one assess whether or to what extent
excellence has been achieved? Who determines standards of excellence?
Because excellence is so abstract and subjective, managers' judgments of
excellence are likely to be used. Yet in the marketplace, customers make
the final determination about the excellence of a product or service. Un-
less a firm consistently captures or influences customers' judgments of
excellence, the standard achieved may no longer be considered excellent
in the marketplace.
For researchers, a definition of quality based on excellence makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the impact of quality
on performance and other variables of interest. Excellence is so idiosyn-
cratic that cross-sectional studies would be meaningless, and because
attributes of excellence are likely to change over time, and perhaps in a
very rapid manner, longitudinal studies also are problematic. Durability,

which today is considered a critical component of product quality, was
not desired until the late 19th century. Only the wealthy could afford
delicate products that required frequent replacement or repair, so durable
products were primarily for the poor (Garvin, 1984).
Several authors (e.g., Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986) argued that quality
does not represent a net increase in costs to a corporation. However, if
companies already have reduced the costs associated with rework, scrap,
warranty costs, and so on, the higher quality components required to
differentiate firms will increase the cost, and usually the price, of a prod-
uct and/or service. Even if a product and/or service is perceived to be
excellent, a sufficient number of consumers must be willing to pay for it,
if a firm is to be economically viable. For example, although Amana and
Maytag appliances were ranked in a mid-1980s survey as having the
highest quality, consumers intended to purchase Sears Kenmore, a more
affordable alternative (Curry, 1985).
Quality is Value
Strengths. In the marketplace, consumption decisions are based on

both price and quality. In his study of appliance manufacturers, Curry
(1985: 112) found that "consumers clearly recognize differences in value,"
as demonstrated by the fact that firms offering high quality at consis-
tently low prices were market share leaders. Whereas economists tradi-
tionally have ignored the impact of quality in purchasing behavior (Ab-
bott, 1955), researchers investigating quality have, to a large extent,
ignored the role of price. If quality is defined as value, multiple attributes
of a product and/or service (e.g., excellence, price, and durability) are
included.
If the quality of a firm's offering is determined by the value offered to
customers, firms must concentrate on both internal efficiency and exter-
nal effectiveness if they are to be successful. Thus, firms are forced to
consider both the cost implications of internal conformance to specifica-
tions and the extent to which external customer expectations are met. For
long-term survival of a firm, this conceptualization of quality is critical
because it takes into account both effectiveness and efficiency.
Defining quality as value allows one to compare widely disparate
objects and experiences, such as a dinner at a five-star restaurant versus
a meal received at a local hamburger emporium. In any industry, numer-
ous price/quality bundles exist about which consumers are indifferent.
Numerous price/quality strategies can thus be successfully pursued by
firms within an industry. The value definition of quality facilitates cross-
industry analyses about consumers' decisions among multiple substi-
tutes (e.g., books vs. movies vs. music vs. other entertainment). Defining
quality as value may give a more accurate indication of how products or
services are perceived in the marketplace and how purchase decisions
are made.
Weaknesses. It is difficult to extract the individual components that
go into a value judgment such that a researcher or manager would know

(a) what components are important and (b) what weights an individual
assigns to those components. For example, price might be the main con-
sideration in a value judgment for undifferentiated items such as compact
discs, yet it could be a minor criterion in a health-care situation. Addi-
tionally, the weight of these components is likely to change over time.
When computers were first introduced, knowledgeable salespeople and
after-sales service were critical. As the sophistication of buyers in-
creased, price became a much more important element of the value judg-
ment.
Considerable disagreement exists regarding the inclusiveness of a
value definition of quality. Stahl and Bounds (1991) argued that quality
may be a component of value, but value is not synonymous with quality.
In contrast, a meeting-and/or-exceeding expectations definition of quality
should include value considerations in customers' expectations. Thus,
value is seen by some to be a subcomponent of quality, whereas others
view quality as a subcomponent of value.
Although value and quality have been viewed as synonymous, they
are more frequently treated as separate constructs in both the academic
and popular press. A firm advertises that a consumer will experience both
quality and value with the purchase of its product and/or service. Bolton
and Drew (1991b) found that customers' assessments of service value de-
pend on their assessments of service quality. Although customers' assess-
ments of service value were positively related with their evaluations of
service quality, the two were not identical constructs. Value has the dis-
advantage of blending "two related but distinct concepts: excellence and
worth. The result is a hybrid-'affordable excellence'-that lacks well-
defined limits and is often highly subjective" (Garvin, 1988: 46).
Quality is Conformance to Specifications
Strengths. Measuring quality using a conformance-to-specifications

definition of quality is relatively straightforward and easy. An organiza-
tion can monitor progress in achieving its quality goals by measuring
how well it is conforming to the established specifications. Likewise,
researchers can use objective measures to assess the impact of differing
levels of quality on organization performance, both across companies and
over time.
Defining quality as conformance to specifications should lead to in-
creased efficiency on the part of the organization. In low-contact services,
it is possible to seal off the "technical core" and establish specifications
that can be met with little variation (Chase & Tansik, 1983), thus lowering
the cost of producing the service. When speed is a critical variable to
customers (e.g., fast-food restaurants, routine bank transactions, video
rental checkout), adherence to specifications should enhance customer
evaluations of quality. Taking the time to respond uniquely to each cus-
tomer increases the time required for delivery to both that customer and
to others waiting for service, potentially decreasing those customers'

level of satisfaction (Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Schneider, 1973).
As the world's economy becomes more internationalized, conform-
ance to specifications is increasingly important. Conformance to specifi-
cations leads to the consistency necessary for a global rather than a
multidomestic strategy. A global strategy, in turn, may result in cost
reductions, improved quality of products and programs, enhanced cus-
tomer preference, and increased competitive leverage (Yip, 1989).
The major advocates (Crosby, Deming, Feigenbaum, and Juran) of a
conformance-to-specifications definition of quality also stressed that cus-
tomers' wants must be the driving force of the specifications that are
established. For customers' wants to be considered, management must
explicitly disaggregate the components that go into the final product and/
or service if appropriate standards are to be established. Similar to the
rationale behind Porter's (1985) value-chain analysis, effective disaggre-
gation makes it less likely that a firm will ignore activities that might be
critical to customers' quality judgments.
If customers' needs are governed by specific requirements or stan-
dards, as they would be for many industrial customers, conformance to
specifications is the most parsimonious, appropriate, and easily mea-
sured definition of quality. The more subjective definitions of excellence,
value, and meeting and/or exceeding expectations become unnecessary
and might, in fact, detract from meeting the needs of some customers.
Similar to a value definition of quality, if customers' needs are correctly
identified, a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality drives an
organization toward both efficient and effective product and/or service
delivery.
Weaknesses. Many, if not most, consumer goods are not evaluated in
terms of conformance to specifications. Customers may not know or care
about how well the product and/or service conformed to internal specifi-
cations. For the consumer, performance is subjective. "Even objective
quantifiable performance is perceived subjectively" (Oliver, 1981b: 38).
Specifications may be met at one point in the value-added chain, but
a customer's final evaluation process will encompass the totality of the
product and/or service package. Thus, a suit might meet all manufactur-
ing specifications, but the customer's judgment of the quality of that suit
may be influenced heavily by the helpfulness and competence of the
retailer from whom it was purchased. Likewise, a customer's evaluation
of a retailer is partly determined by the quality of the suit being pur-
chased, even though the retailer did not produce the product and may
have conformed to specifications in the customer transaction.
A conformance-to-specifications definition of quality may be inappro-
priate for services, especially when a high degree of human contact is
involved. By meeting the specifications established for a service encoun-
ter, one may detract from the customer's final quality judgment (Bowen &
Lawler, 1992; Chase, 1985). Human interactions are an integral part of
quality in many industries, making it difficult or counterproductive to

specify standards that must be met.
Are they [the standards] compatible with more general (and

perhaps in the long run more functional) goals of human dig-
nity? Could such measures serve to divert attention from more
genuine attitudes of care and helpfulness? Do they lead to a
type of behavior which some customers find repellent? Do
they contribute to an internal climate of trust or of control, and
which climate is relevant in specific situations? In what cul-
tures could such measures work and where would they not
work? (Normann, 1984: 106)
When specifications cannot be established or conformance to them actu-

ally detracts from the quality of the service, defining quality as confor-
mance to specifications results in lower, not higher, quality.
If a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality governs the
establishment of organization structure, reward systems, and human re-
source practices like selection and training in an organization, an esca-
lation of commitment toward these practices may occur when none is
warranted (Galbraith, 1983). The standardization that is necessary for a
conformance-to-specifications definition of quality works against an
adaptive organization that has the flexibility to respond to marketplace
changes.
The establishment of appropriate specifications is dependent on
management's ability to identify customer needs. However, preferences
change, sometimes dramatically, over time (Cameron & Whetten, 1983),
and established specifications quickly become irrelevant. The internal
focus of a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality makes it
likely that a firm will be unaware of or ignore what competitors are doing.
Thus, competitors may be driving customers' expectations to new heights
while a firm continues to meet internal specifications. A classic example
of this phenomenon is Henry Ford's experiences with the Model T in the
1920s. Ford was a world leader in meeting specifications, but General
Motors successfully pursued a strategy of giving customers a choice of
colors and styling that was missing in Ford's product. A firm will not
succeed in the long term if its drive for efficiency causes it to ignore the
marketplace changes that determine effectiveness (Hofer & Schendel,
1978).
Quality is Meeting and/or Exceeding Customers' Expectations
Strengths. In the marketplace, quality must ultimately be evaluated

from the customer's perspective. Customers can articulate how well a
product and/or service meets their expectations, a perceptual judgment
they cannot make about how well the product and/or service conforms to
specifications. Defining quality as the extent to which a product and/or
service meets and/or exceeds expectations allows managers and re-
searchers to include subjective factors (i.e., courtesy, helpfulness,

confidence, appearance) that are critical to customers' judgments but dif-
ficult to quantify into assessments of quality. It is possible to capture
what is important to customers rather than establishing standards based
on management judgments that may or may not be accurate.
The extent to which a firm has met and/or exceeded customers' ex-
pectations is applicable across a wide variety of industries. The SERV-
QUAL instruments developed by Parasuraman et al. (1985; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991, 1993) is a
generic instrument designed to measure the gap between customers' ex-
pectations and perceptions. Although subsequent researchers (Babakus &
Boller, 1992; Brown, Churchill, & Peter, 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992) have questioned the applicability of the instrument when
applied without industry-specific adjustments, its developers continue to
argue that it provides "core evaluation criteria that transcend specific
companies and industries" (Parasuraman et al., 1993: 145). Whether or not
one measurement instrument is universally applicable, careful selection
of the variables to be measured allows one to assess the impact of meet-
ing and/or exceeding expectations across industries.
Meeting and/or exceeding expectations is an externally focused def-
inition of quality. Firms defining quality in this way are likely to note
major changes in the marketplace unless their monitoring systems are
inadequate or infrequently used. Managers can account for and respond
to escalating expectations on the part of customers. Further, if a firm can
consistently discover or drive customers' expectations, and meet them, its
competitive advantage will be difficult to overcome.
Defining quality as whether a product and/or service meets and/or
exceeds expectations is all encompassing. Firms can include numerous
attributes and weights when trying to judge expectations, thus capturing
the fact that different firms in an industry will typically compete on dif-
ferent dimensions of quality (Garvin, 1988). Wal-Mart may meet custom-
ers' expectations as well as or better than Nordstrom, even though Wal-
Mart focuses on delivering low price and speedy checkout, whereas
Nordstrom focuses on attentive service and responding to the unique de-
mands of each customer. Thus, customers' judgments across firms are
possible, even though the corporate strategies vary greatly.
Weaknesses. Meeting and/or exceeding customers' expectations is
the most complex definition of quality and, thus, is the most difficult to
measure. Researchers must account for the fact that different customers
place different weights on the various attributes of a product and/or ser-
vice. Devising an unbiased statistical procedure for aggregating such
widely varying preferences is difficult (Carman, 1990). Aggregating
widely varying individual preferences so that they lead to meaningful
definitions of quality at the market level is also problematic (Garvin,
1988).
Determining and measuring customer expectations is a complex task
because often customers do not know what their expectations are, par-
ticularly with infrequently purchased products and/or services (Cameron
& Whetten, 1983; Lawrence & Reeves, 1993). A customer may conclude
only after consumption that what was received was not all that was de-
sired. Because customers have idiosyncratic reactions to different expe-
riences, predicting when product and/or service attributes will meet ex-
pectations and when they will fall short is complex. The difficulty in
predicting reactions is exacerbated with intangible output because the
more intangible the output, the greater the ambiguity faced by consumers
when assessing service quality (Bowen & Schneider, 1988).
Prepurchase attitudes play a major role in subsequent customer eval-
uations. Summarizing a series of marketing studies, Oliver (1981a: 36)
concluded that "disconfirmation, satisfaction, and one's attitude prior to a
purchase or use experience all work to affect one's post-usage attitude."
For example, "consumers with initially favorable expectations tended to
be satisfied, even when disconfirmation was negative and, likewise, ini-
tially unfavorable expectations tended to result in dissatisfaction, even
when positive disconfirmation occurred" (Oliver, 1981b: 39). Current mea-
surement techniques (SERVQUAL and related instruments) assume that a
high level of service quality has been achieved if the gap between a
customer's expectations and his or her subsequent perceptions is positive
and large. However, Oliver's work suggests that customers will evaluate
the quality of a product and/or service more favorably if their initial ex-
pectations are high. Thus, although the gap is larger when customers
enter an experience with lower expectations, the perceptions component
of the quality judgment will be more favorable when initial expectations
are higher. This is particularly important because numerous researchers
(Brown et al., 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992) have found that
the perceptions component, by itself, possesses stronger psychometric
properties than a gap measurement.
Managers and researchers must consider the difference in short-term
and long-term quality evaluations. A product or service may be judged
high in quality in the short term but low in quality over the long term and
vice-versa (Curry, 1985). Further, several authors argued that perceived
service quality is a long-run, global attitudinal evaluation, whereas
transaction-specific evaluations are more appropriately considered as a
measure of customer satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Bolton & Drew, 1991a; Para-
suraman et al., 1988). "Attitude is the consumer's relatively enduring af-
fective orientation for a product, store, or process (e.g., customer service),
while satisfaction is the emotional reaction following a disconfirmation
experience which acts on the base attitude level and is consumption-
specific" (Oliver, 1981a: 42). Thus, perceived quality of service tends to be
a stable construct, whereas a customer's satisfaction may change with
each individual transaction (Bolton & Drew, 1991a).
The customer service/satisfaction debate extends to which construct
precedes the other. Bitner (1990) and Bolton and Drew (1991b) concluded
that service quality is an outcome of customer satisfaction. Cronin and

Taylor (1992), however, found empirical support for the argument that this
relationship is, in fact, reversed. Their results indicated that perceived
service quality led to satisfaction but that satisfaction did not lead to
perceived service quality. This discrepancy suggests significant confu-
sion about the quality/satisfaction constructs.
Although satisfaction and service quality have been treated as sep-
arate constructs, their typical operationalization makes it difficult to dis-
tinguish between the two. Both have been operationalized along the lines
suggested by adaptation-level theory. This theory maintains that the ba-
sic determinant of consumer satisfaction is "the prepurchase expectation
level and the degree to which the product or service performance deviates
from that level" (Oliver, 1981 a: 28). Parasuraman and colleagues similarly
measure perceived service quality as "the degree and direction of dis-
crepancy between consumers' perceptions and expectations" (1988: 17).
The difference, according to these authors, is that the literature on satis-
faction defines expectations as predictions made by consumers, whereas
the literature on service quality views expectations as desires or wants of
consumers. This distinction may be difficult for managers, consumers,
and researchers to perceive and measure.
Summary
Each quality definition has strengths and weaknesses in relation to

measurement and generalizability, managerial usefulness, and con-
sumer relevance. Quality is measured most precisely when defined as
conformance to specifications; it is most difficult to measure when de-
fined as excellence. Current efforts to develop a generic service quality
instrument (Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al.,
1993) make it likely that a meeting-and/or-exceeding expectations defini-
tion of quality will guide future researchers who attempt to generalize
across industries.
Definitions of quality also vary in their usefulness to managers.
Quality defined as excellence can provide powerful motivation to a work-
force. Quality defined as value or conformance to specifications can lead
an organization to focus on efficiency, and quality defined as meeting
and/or exceeding expectations compels management to keep abreast of
changes in consumer demands. However, each definition has drawbacks
for managers: excellence provides limited practical guidance, value and
quality typically represent different concepts, conformance to specifica-
tions may cause managers to focus on internal efficiency while neglect-
ing external effectiveness, and understanding and measuring consumers'
expectations is problematic.
For consumers, meeting and/or exceeding expectations is the most
relevant definition of quality. When consumers' expectations are domi-
nated by notions of excellence, value, or conformance to specifications,
any of these quality definitions may apply. For most consumption
decisions, however, consumers base choices on a number of product and/

or service characteristics, making the excellence, value, or conformance-
to-specifications definitions of quality too restricted to reflect accurately
consumer desires.
Table 1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of each definition
of quality. Because no definition of quality is best in every situation,
managers and researchers must examine the strengths and weaknesses
of each before adopting a definition to guide their work. By explicitly
identifying the quality definition they are using, and recognizing its
strengths and weaknesses, managers are better able to move organiza-
tions toward the achievement of quality, and researchers can make prog-
ress toward assessing the impact of quality on organizational perfor-
mance and other variables of interest.
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Quality has been the subject of debate and discussion for centuries,
but systematic and scientific inquiry into the meaning of quality is in its
infancy. The literature we summarized indicates that no universal, par-
simonious, or all-encompassing definition or model of quality exists. Dif-
ferent definitions of quality have suggested diverse questions about qual-
ity which, in turn, have necessitated the development and use of various
methods for assessing quality and yielded disparate results, conclusions,
and recommendations. Definitional difficulties account for many of the
inconsistent and often contradictory empirical results found in the extant
literature.
Conflicting empirical findings exist concerning the impact of quality
on key variables such as price, productivity, market share, cost, and
profit (Garvin, 1988). To illustrate how relationships with quality vary
depending upon the definition that is employed, we discuss three vari-
ables (price, market share, and cost) that are frequently linked to quality
in the literature (Bonner & Nelson, 1985; Buzzell & Gale, 1987; Crosby, 1979;
Curry, 1985; Curry & Faulds, 1985; Deming, 1982, 1986; Monroe & Krishnan,
1985; Peterson & Wilson, 1985). We also discuss the influence that orga-
nizational output, time, and multiple constituencies have on future qual-
ity research.
Quality and Price
Much of the marketing literature (Leavitt, 1954; Shapiro, 1968) has

found support for a positive relationship between price and perceived
quality. However, Peterson and Wilson (1985) argued that research results
have been inconsistent. They found a relationship that was nonlinear and
highly variable across individuals and products being judged. Their re-
search demonstrated that some customers use price as a cue for quality
for some products, but that existing research had failed to identify which
customers would use price cues under what conditions. They, along with
TABLE 1
Strengths and Weaknesses of Quality Definitions
Definition Strengths Weaknesses
Excellence Strong marketing and human Provides little practical guidance

resource benefits to practitioners
Universally recognizable- mark Measurement difficulties
of uncompromising standards Attributes of excellence may
and high achievement change dramatically and
rapidly
Sufficient number of customers
must be willing to pay for
excellence
Value Concept of value incorporates Difficulty extracting individual

multiple attributes components of value judgment
Focuses attention on a firm's Questionable inclusiveness
internal efficiency and external Quality and value are different
effectiveness constructs
Allows for comparisons across
disparate objects and
experiences
Conformance to Facilitates precise measurement Consumers do not know or care

Specifications Leads to increased efficiency about internal specifications
Necessary for global strategy Inappropriate for services
Should force disaggregation of Potentially reduces organizational
consumer needs adaptability
Most parsimonious and Specifications may quickly
appropriate definition for some become obsolete in rapidly
customers changing markets
Internally focused
Meeting and/or Evaluates from customer's Most complex definition

Exceeding perspective Difficult to measure
Expectations Applicable across industries Customers may not know
Responsive to market changes expectations
All-encompassing definition Idiosyncratic reactions
Pre-purchase attitudes affect
subsequent judgments
Short-term and long-term
evaluations may differ
Confusion between customer
service and customer
satisfaction
Monroe and Krishnan (1985), attributed much of the inconsistency and

confusion to differences in the way perceived quality was defined and
measured.
Quality defined as excellence implies that the finest inputs and pro-
cesses are used to make a product and/or provide a service, and, thus, a
premium price can be commanded. Quality defined as conformance to
specifications and/or value implies that efficient and cost-effective inputs

and processes are used to make a product and/or provide a service. The
resultant cost reductions should lead to lower prices in the marketplace.
When quality is defined as meeting and/or exceeding expectations, the
price/quality relationship varies depending upon the specific expecta-
tions customers bring to a transaction. For example, customers are likely
to demand and expect lower prices with commodity products, whereas a
premium price may be consistent with expectations for differentiated
products.
Quality and Market Share
Studies on the relationship between quality and market share have

produced inconsistent results. Research based on the PIMS database has
consistently found that quality and market share are positively related
(Buzzell & Gale, 1987). PIMS researchers operationalize quality through
manager assessments of the position of their firm's products relative to
competitors. In studies that define quality as the degree of excellence
achieved, researchers have reported opposite results. Curry and Faulds
(1985) found that higher quality major appliances achieved lower market
share than lower quality appliances because lower quality appliances
were more affordable. Likewise, foods that were judged very high in qual-
ity had much smaller sales volumes than lower quality alternatives (Bon-
ner & Nelson, 1985).
Excellent products and/or services are expensive and unaffordable to
a significant number of customers within a market, restricting the poten-
tial market share that a firm might obtain. Even though customers may
desire excellence, they are willing to make trade-offs and purchase prod-
ucts perceived to provide a better overall value. When quality is defined
as conformance to specifications, the relationship between market share
and quality varies according to the established specifications. A positive
relationship will exist if specifications capture customers' requirements;
a negative relationship will result when specifications do not capture
customers' requirements. Assuming customers' expectations are accu-
rately identified and met, the relationship between market share and
quality is positive when quality is defined as meeting and/or exceeding
expectations.
Quality and Cost
Studies relating quality and cost and quality and profits have been
equally contradictory. Operations management scholars (Crosby, 1979;
Deming, 1982, 1986), who generally define quality as conformance to spec-
ifications, have argued that an inverse relationship exists between qual-
ity and cost because increased quality results in less scrap, rework, war-
ranty costs, and so on. For differentiated products, where quality is
defined as excellence, cost has been found to be positively correlated
with quality (Garvin, 1987). Excellent products and services require costly
inputs and processes. For example, consistently attentive service by em-

ployees in a retail store requires continuous training, appropriate com-
pensation, and more salespeople to respond quickly to customers' re-
quests and needs.
When quality is defined as value or meeting and/or exceeding expec-
tations, the relationship between cost and quality varies depending upon
the specific demands, desires, and requirements of the customer. If less
costly inputs can meet customers' expectations and value requirements,
cost will decrease. If more costly inputs are required, cost will increase.
Because the variability is so great in the relationship between cost and
quality when quality is defined as value or meeting and/or exceeding
expectations, no relationship can be hypothesized.
Quality and the Nature of Organizational Output
No universal definition of quality applies to all products and all ser-
vices in all industries. We believe that comparative and cumulative re-
search results about quality can be obtained only by (a) focusing upon the
fundamental nature of an organization's output and (b) using a definition
of quality suitable for that output. For example, an organization's output
can be classified along two key dimensions: degree of tangibility and
extent of customization. Degree of tangibility has strong implications for
whether quality attributes can be specified and measured and how output
attributes are communicated to customers. Extent of customization deter-
mines the degree to which the quality attributes of an organization's out-
put will be similar across customer groups. These dimensions imply the
appropriateness of the following quality definitions given different types
of output. For example, quality can be defined as conformance to speci-
fications for output that is tangible and standardized. For output that is
customized and intangible, quality can be defined as the extent to which
the output meets and/or exceeds customer expectations. Determining the
nature of an organization's output permits researchers to more clearly
define and appropriately measure quality.
Quality and Time
Time is a crucial variable in understanding and measuring quality.

Short-term assessments of quality may reveal that a particular product or
service effectively meets and exceeds a consumer's expectations. How-
ever, perceived quality at time' is not necessarily perceived quality at
2 3
time , time , or time
Curry, 1985). A product and/or service that exceeded a customer's expec-
tations at one point in time may simply be judged as ordinary at another
point in time. Because expectations change and may escalate over time,
measurement timing has a significant impact on quality judgments.
Quality and Multiple Constituencies
Customers within and outside an organization typically define qual-
ity differently. Internal organizational customers may value and use quality
dimensions that are quite different from the dimensions used by external
customers. In fact, striving for quality within an organization, depart-
ment, and/or team may hinder the achievement of quality with external
clients and customers. Conversely, quality characteristics necessary to
meet the needs of external evaluators may inhibit internal quality. For
example, the time devoted to analyzing and improving an internal pro-
duction process may cause delays in delivery that a customer is unwilling
to tolerate. Similarly, a client's demand for a customized order may dra-
matically affect the quality of a department's work processes and perfor-
mance.
Managers and researchers must account for the trade-offs inherent in
the different quality definitions used by relevant constituencies. Uncer-
tainty regarding whose definitional preferences should take precedence
frequently exists when an organization is trying to develop a definition of
quality (Cameron & Whetten, 1983). Although authors in both the aca-
demic and practitioner literature have argued that the external custom-
er's preferences are paramount, the difficulties and expense of identify-
ing these preferences frequently leads management to use its own
perceptions of customers' desires when designing products or services.
Determining who can and/or should judge or evaluate quality is a key
factor in any research investigation.
CONCLUSION
For both researchers and practitioners, understanding the nature of

quality is more than a philosophical issue. Research conducted for the
profit impact of market strategy (PIMS) program has led to the conclusion
that "in the long run, the most important single factor affecting a business
unit's performance is the quality of its products and services, relative to
those of competitors" (Buzzell & Gale, 1987: 7). Given the importance of
quality, it is not surprising that a long but unsuccessful search has been
conducted for a global definition of the construct. We believe that such a
global definition does not exist and that different definitions of quality
are appropriate in different circumstances.
The fragmented nature of the present literature suggests that multi-
ple definitions and/or models of quality are required to capture the com-
plexity and richness of the construct. In this regard, the quality literature
is evolving along lines similar to other important but elusive constructs.
As Cameron and Whetten (1983: 267) suggested:
Constructs such as intelligence, motivation, or leadership-

whose construct space, by definition, is not bounded-have
been better understood as limited aspects of their total mean-
ing have been measured. For example, a variety of ap-
proaches to motivation have been developed, each limited to
a specific domain of the construct.
The complexity and multiple perspectives historically associated

with the concept of quality have made theoretical and research advances
difficult. The search for a universal definition of quality and a statement
of lawlike relationships has been unsuccessful. The quality construct
space is so broad and includes so many components that there would be
little utility in any model that tried to encompass them all. Consequently,
the challenge is not to formulate one definition or model that attempts to
account for all possible variables. Rather, the challenge is to develop
models and definitions that are comparable, even cumulative, and that
account for many of the components neglected up to now (Cameron &
Whetten, 1983). The basis for choosing pertinent definitions that can
guide the development of conceptual frameworks and measurement
methods is provided through exploring the roots of various definitions of
quality, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and examining the
trade-offs inherent in accepting one definition of quality over another.
REFERENCES
Abbott, L. 1955. Quality and competition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Abernathy, W. J., & Corcoran, J. E. 1983. Relearning from the old masters: Lessons of the
American system of manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management, 3(4): 155-167.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. 1992. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal
of Business Research, 24: 253-268.
Bayton, J. A. 1958. Motivation, cognition, learning-Basic factors in consumer behavior.

Journal of Marketing, 22 (3): 282-289.
Bell, D. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York:
Basic Books.
Bitner, M. J. 1990. Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings

employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2): 69-82.
Boehm, G. A. W. 1963. "Reliability" engineering. Fortune, April: 124-127, 181-186.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. 1991a. A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes
on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55(1): 1-9.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. 1991b. A multistage model of customers' assessments of service
quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17: 375-384.
Bonner, P. G., & Nelson, R. 1985. In J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: 65-79.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. 1981. Marketing strategies and organization structures for se
vice firms. In J. Donnelly & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services: 47-51, Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. III. 1992. The empowerment of service workers: What, why,
how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33(3): 31-39.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. 1985. Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks:
Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 423-433.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. 1988. Services marketing and management: Implications for
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10: 43-80.
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J. P. 1993. Improving the measurement of service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1): 127- 139.
Bucklin, L. P. 1963. Retail strategy and the class of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing, 27
(January): 51-56.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991. Employment and earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor.
Buzzell, R., & Gale, B. 1987. The PIMS principles: Linking strategy to performance. New York:
Free Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. 1983. Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of mul-

tiple models. New York: Academic Press.
Cardozo, R. N. 1965. An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction.

Journal of Marketing Research, 2: 244-249.
Carman, J. M. 1990. Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERV-

QUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1): 33-55.
Chase, R. B. 1985. The 10 commandments of service system management. Interfaces, 15(3):

68-72.
Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. 1983. The customer contact model for organization design.
Management Science, 49: 1037-1050.
Collier, D. 1983. Managing a service firm: A different management game. National Produc-
tivity Review, 2(1): 36-45.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. 1992. Measuring service quality: A reexamination and ex-
tension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 55-68.
Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: New Amer-
ican Library.
Curry, D. J. 1985. Measuring price and quality competition. Journal of Marketing, 49(2): 106-
117.
Curry, D. J., & Faulds, D. J. 1985. The measurement of quality competition in strategic
groups. In J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: 269-293. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
Deming, W. E. 1982. Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge: Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1951. Quality control: Principles, practice, and administration. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1961. Total quality control: Engineering and management (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1982. Quality and business growth today. Quality Progress, 15(11): 22-25.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1983. Total quality control (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1991. Total quality control (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Galbraith, J. R. 1983. Strategy and organization planning. Human Resource Management,

22(1/2): 63-77.
Garvin, D. A. 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review,
65(6): 101-109.
Garvin, D. A. 1984. What does "product quality" really mean? Sloan Management Review,
26(1): 25-43.
Garvin, D. A. 1988. Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York: Free
Press.
Gilmore, H. L. 1974. Product conformance cost. Quality progress, 7(5): 16-19.
Granroos, C. 1983. Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Cambridge,
MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Granroos, C. 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal
of Marketing, 18(4): 36-44.
Granroos, C. 1990. Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in
service competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Harlis, D. H., & Chaney, F. B. 1969. Human factors in quality assurance. New York: Wiley.
Haywood-Farmer, J., Alleyne, A., Duff us, B., & Downing, M. 1985. Controlling service qual-
ity. Business Quarterly, 49(4): 62-67.
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. E. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul,
MN: West.
Hounshell, D. A. 1984. From the American system of mass production 1800-1932. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is total quality control? The Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ishikawa, K. 1986. Guide to quality control. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. 1985. Perceived quality. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Johnson, P. 1988. A history of the Jews. New York: Harper & Row.
Judd, R. C. 1964. The case for redesigning services. Journal of Marketing, 28(1): 58-59.
Judd, R. C. 1968. Similarities or differences in product and service retailing. Journal of

Retailing, 43: 1-9.
Juran, J. M. 1951. Quality control handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. 1992. Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into goods
and services. New York: Free Press.
Juran, J. M., & Bingham, R. S. 1974. Service industries. In J. Juran, F. Gryna, Jr., & R. Bing-
ham (Eds.), Quality control handbook: 47-1, 47-35. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M., & Gryna, F. M., Jr. (Eds.). 1988. Juran's quality control handbook (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M., Gryna, F. M., Jr., & Bingham, R. S. (Eds.). 1974. Quality control handbook. (3rd.
ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M., Seder, L. A., & Gryna, F. M., Jr. (Eds.). 1962. Quality control handbook. (2nd ed.)
New York: McGraw-Hill.
King, C. 1984. Service-oriented quality control. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, 25(November): 92-
98.
King, C. 1985. Service quality assurance is different. Quality Progress, 18(6): 14-18.
Kitto, H. D. F. 1951. The Greeks. Middlesex, England: Chaucer Press.
Kuehn, A. A., & Day, R. L. 1962. Strategy of product quality. Harvard Business Review, 40(6):
100-110.
Lawrence, R. C., & Reeves, C. A. 1993. Ambiguity in understanding quality: Antecedent

judgments of customers and firms. Southern Management Association Proceedings:
324-326.
Leavitt, H. J. 1954. A note on some experimental findings about the meanings of price.
Journal of Business, 27(7): 205-206.
Levitt, T. 1972. Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review, 50(5): 41-52.
Levitt, T. 1976. The industrialization of service. Harvard Business Review, 54(5): 63-74.
Lovelock, C. 1981. Why marketing management needs to be different for services. In J.

Donnelly, & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services: 5-9. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Mills, P. K., & Margulies, N. 1980. Toward a core typology of service organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 5: 255-265.
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. 1985. The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. In
J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: 209-232. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Normann, R. 1984. Service management: Strategy and leadership in service businesses. New
York: Wiley.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. 1981 a. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings.

Journal of Retailing, 57(3): 25-48.
Oliver, R. L. 1981b. What is customer satisfaction? Wharton Magazine, 5(3): 36-41.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. 1993. More on improving service quality
measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69: 140-147.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. 1991. Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67: 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. 1985. A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 4(4): 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64: 12-37.
Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R. 1985. Perceived risk and price-reliance schema as price-
perceived quality mediators. In J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: 247-267.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pirsig, R. M. 1974. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. New York: Bantam Books.
Pirsig, R. M. 1992. Lila: An inquiry into morals. New York: Bantam Books.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.

New York: Free Press.
Regan, W. J. 1963. The service revolution. Journal of Marketing, 27(3): 57-62.
Ross, P. J. 1989. Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., & Wyckoff, D. D. 1978. Management of service operations. Bos-
ton: Allyn & Bacon.
Scanlon, F., & Hagan, J. T. 1983. Quality management for the service industries-Part I.
Quality Progress, 15(5): 18-23.
Schneider, B. 1973. The perception of organizational climate: The customer's view. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 57(3): 248-256.
Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. 1980. Employee and customer perceptions o
service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 252-267.
Shapiro, B. P. 1968. The psychology of pricing. Harvard Business Review, 46(4): 17-18.
Shetty, Y. K., & Ross, J. E. 1985. Quality and its management in service businesses. Indus-
trial Management, 27(6): 7-12.
Shewhart, W. A. 1931. Economic control of quality of manufactured product. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Shostack, G. L. 1977. Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41(2):
73-80.
Stahl, M. J., & Bounds, G. M. 1991. Competing globally through customer value. New York:
Quorum Books.
Swan, J. E., & Combs, L. J. 1976. Product performance and consumer satisfaction: A new
concept. Journal of Marketing, 40(4): 25-33.
Thomas, D. R. 1978. Strategy is different in service businesses. Harvard Business Review,

56(7): 158-165.
Tuchman, B. W. 1980. The decline of quality. New York Times Magazine. November 2: 38-41,
104.
Williams, R. H., & Zigli, R. M. 1987. Ambiguity impedes quality in the service industries.
Quality Progress, 19(7): 14-17.
Wilson, A. 1972. The marketing of professional services. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yip, G. S. 1989. Global strategy ... in a world of nations. Sloan Management Review, 89(1):
29-41.
Zeithaml, V. A. 1981. How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and ser-
vices. In J. Donnelly, & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services: 186-190, Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. 1990. Delivering quality service. New York:
Free Press.
Zimmerman, C. D., & Enell, J. W. 1988. Service industries. In J. Juran & F. Gryna, Jr., (Eds.),
Quality control handbook: 33-1-33-72.
Carol A. Reeves received her Ph.D. in strategic management from the University of
Georgia. She presently is an assistant professor in the management department at
the University of Arkansas. Her current research focuses on issues related to service
quality, strategy implementation, and entrepreneurship.
David A. Bednar received his Ph.D. from Purdue University. He presently is an

associate professor in the management department at the University of Arkansas.
His current research focuses on organizational innovation and change, organiza-
tional symbolism, and service quality.

69 - Defining Quality Alternatives and Implications Academy of Management Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

69 - Defining Quality Alternatives and Implications Academy of Management Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications

Author(s): Carol A. Reeves and David A. Bednar

DEFINING QUALITY: ALTERNATIVES

The search for a universal definition of quality has yielded inconsis-

The concept of "quality" has been contemplated throughout history

meaning of the dependent variable continually changes (Cameron &

ROOTS OF QUALITY DEFINITIONS

Significant discussions about quality, or good, were initiated by Soc-

means investment of the best skill and effort possible to pro-

In fields such as religion, music, sculpture, and painting, where judg-

The practicality of defining quality as excellence in matters of com-

the ultimate arbiter of trade, and that business flourished by serving

Quality does not have the popular meaning of "best" in any

When price tags are attached to ideas or services or products,

Feigenbaum and Abbott asserted that differentiation in levels of both

Quality is Conformance to Specifications

We must define quality of product in such a way that the

Subjective quality was important, but standards could be established and

Quality is Meeting and/or Exceeding Customers' Expectations

The most pervasive definition of quality currently in use is the extent

Feigenbaum. In the first edition of Total Quality Control, Feigenbaum

1. Marketplace quality-the degree to which a specific prod-

6. A vague expression of general excellence but without be-

For Juran, marketplace quality, the ability of a product to satisfy custom

bringing more objectively derived customer wants into the definition of

munificence of the manufacturer" (1972: 43). For Levitt, the essence of

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY

usefulness, and consumer relevance. By examining these strengths and

Strengths. Striving for and producing an excellent product or service

very rapid manner, longitudinal studies also are problematic. Durability,

Strengths. In the marketplace, consumption decisions are based on

go into a value judgment such that a researcher or manager would know

Quality is Conformance to Specifications

Strengths. Measuring quality using a conformance-to-specifications

to others waiting for service, potentially decreasing those customers'

quality in many industries, making it difficult or counterproductive to

Are they [the standards] compatible with more general (and

When specifications cannot be established or conformance to them actu-

Quality is Meeting and/or Exceeding Customers' Expectations

Strengths. In the marketplace, quality must ultimately be evaluated

searchers to include subjective factors (i.e., courtesy, helpfulness,

that service quality is an outcome of customer satisfaction. Cronin and

Each quality definition has strengths and weaknesses in relation to

decisions, however, consumers base choices on a number of product and/

Quality and Price

Much of the marketing literature (Leavitt, 1954; Shapiro, 1968) has

Definition Strengths Weaknesses

Excellence Strong marketing and human Provides little practical guidance

Value Concept of value incorporates Difficulty extracting individual

Conformance to Facilitates precise measurement Consumers do not know or care

Meeting and/or Evaluates from customer's Most complex definition

Monroe and Krishnan (1985), attributed much of the inconsistency and

specifications and/or value implies that efficient and cost-effective inputs

Quality and Market Share

Studies on the relationship between quality and market share have

Quality and Cost

inputs and processes. For example, consistently attentive service by em-

Time is a crucial variable in understanding and measuring quality.

For both researchers and practitioners, understanding the nature of

Constructs such as intelligence, motivation, or leadership-

The complexity and multiple perspectives historically associated

Bayton, J. A. 1958. Motivation, cognition, learning-Basic factors in consumer behavior.

Bitner, M. J. 1990. Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings