The article by Hoyer and Hoyer explores the essence of quality focusing on the eight prominent gurus’ views. Pointing out that quality assurance tools might vary with time, authors emphasize that it aims at performance excellence.
First, the authors reflect Crosby’s definition that refers to the accordance of all the measured characteristics to the specified criteria. At that, the requirements should be stated clearly and specifically regarding numerical indicators. Crosby’s theory likely suggests only two levels of quality including acceptable and unacceptable ones. Second, Deming’s definition operates with the customers’ satisfaction.
According to his theory, quality is multidimensional as it cannot be determined by one criterion. On the contrary to Crosby, Deming claims that several quality levels directly depend on customers’ requirements. Third, Feigenbaum’s definition is similar to those of Deming regarding the customers’ satisfaction. In particular, quality, states Feigenbaum, should be evaluated comprehensively (Hoyer and Hoyer 56). Also, quality is dynamic as it depends on clients’ changing expectations. Feigenbaum supposes to transform the latter into measurable quality characteristics.
Moreover, Ishikawa defines quality as the changing needs of customers. At that, he states that quality should be ensured on all levels of an organization. Ishikawa considers that quality is directly related to price. For example, if a high-quality product is overpriced, it cannot satisfy customers. In turn, Juran’s definition focuses on both customers’ requirements and conformance to specification criteria. However, it is quite difficult to combine these features in one definition.
Therefore, Juran uses a new term of fitness for use that refers to two identified characteristics. It should be noted that Hoyer and Hoyer do not consider this theory consistent (57). The authors of the article state that the definition of the following guru is more interesting for academics rather than for average readers. Pirsig identifies quality as a modern art avoiding precise terms. At the same time, his work is full of technical terms that cause multiple contradictions. The latter is a challenge for a person who strives to ensure the high quality of a product. Pirsig operates with such notions as excellence, goodness, and worth. From the above explanation, it becomes clear that Pirsig’s definition is different from others due to the outstanding vision of quality nature.
Furthermore, Shewhart’s definition is based on the two components of quality that are as follows: subjective (customers’ needs) and objective (product’s characteristics). The scholar distinguishes the four characteristics of quality: cost, esteem, use, and exchange. Likewise, Ishikawa values an adequate price believing that it is connected with quality. Also, Shewhart stresses that statistics is a useful tool to understand the customers’ needs and transform them into measurable indicators.
The last idea goes in line with those expressed by Feigenbaum. Taguchi identifies quality through societal quality and societal loss functions. He claims that quality is a loss to society, and “loss caused by the product’s or service’s intrinsic function does not count toward the loss to society” (Hoyer and Hoyer 61). To achieve quality, it is essential to constantly strive to take into account the measurable characteristics of a product.
Finally, the authors state that Shewhart’s definition is the most appropriate in the context of intellectual and practical perspectives. After reading the article, it becomes evident that there are two levels of quality including correspondence of a product to measurable specification criteria (Crosby and Taguchi) and customers’ satisfaction (Feigenbaum, Deming, Ishikawa, and Pirsig). Juran and Shewhart attempt to satisfy both of the mentioned levels.
Works Cited
Hoyer, Robert W., and Brooke Y. Hoyer. “What Is Quality?” Quality Progress 34.7 (2011): 52-62. Print.