The Concept of Quality: A literature review

Liezel Bianca C. Dizon

Industrial Engineering, De La Salle University

Abstract

This paper aims to exhibit the evolution of the concept of quality and to highlight the past and
emerging research stemming from different fields and subject areas of quality. From the literature review,
it was found that several definitions of quality exist because of conflicting views and objectives in the
business environment. Thus, the author suggests that it is not necessary to arrive at a universally accepted
definition of quality, but rather arrive at a shared understanding of quality. Research and practical
implications of the study was then elaborated.

Keywords: quality, transcendent approach, product-based approach, value-based approach,

manufacturing-based approach, user-based approach
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction 2. Definitions of Quality and their

Quality is defined in the Oxford Dictionary
as “the standard of something as measured
against other things of a similar kind; degree of
excellence of something”. As simple as it may
sound, when analyzed, quality is more than just a
measurement or a degree of something. Efforts in
creating a universally accepted definition of
quality has been ongoing since 1800’s. However,
several conflicts has emerged in the search for its
single definition.
The main objective of this literature-based
research is to exhibit the evolution of the concept
of quality through time and to highlight the past
and emerging research stemming from different
fields and subject areas of quality. Through the
systematic literature review, this study aims to
answer the question:
How did the concept of quality evolve over time?
From this question, more points for discussion
arise:
a. What factors could affect a future change
in the meaning of quality?
b. What is the significance of quality to
business?
Implications
Garvin (1984) reported that there are five
basic approaches to define quality namely,
transcendent approach, product-based
approach, manufacturing-based approach,
value-based approach, and the user-based
approach. These approaches have been adapted,
modified, and expanded throughout the literature
to arrive at an improved definition of quality.
Transcendent Approach
Reeves and Bednar (1994) stated that Greek
philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle initiated
the concept of quality as excellence. Excellence
is ideal to the Greeks and its definition varied by
its context. However, for Plato, excellence was
absolute and the highest idea of all. Tuchman
(1908) supported this idea by stating that “quality
is achieving or reaching for the highest standard
as against being satisfied with the sloppy or
fraudulent”. Tuchman believed that quality does
not allow compromise with the second rate.
Consequently, using this definition of quality
where one must strive to produce excellent
products and services provides strong marketing
and human resource benefits.
 However, equating quality as excellence
offers little practical direction to managers since
the manner in which one must assess whether or
to what extent excellence has been achieved is
ambiguous. In addition, in a theoretical point of
view, defining quality based on excellence
complicates the measurement and comparison of
the impact of quality on performance and other
variables of interest (Reeves and Bednar, 1994).
Furthermore, Crosby (1979) argued that
“excellence” being synonymous to quality is a
difficult assumption given that it is
unmeasurable. With this, Elshaer (2012)
invalidated the definition when evaluated from
Routio’s (2009) criteria.by stating that it contains
a figurative language, by being vague, and it fails
to meet the reliability criterion by being difficult
to measure.
The need for quality to be measured is in fact
debatable. According to Greenwood (1991) as
cited in Smith (1993), the common mistake of
many social and behavioral scientists is equating
a concept’s meaning with its operationalization or
method of measurement. The meaning of the
concept and the manner of its measurement is
different from one another. Smith (1993) argued
that “transcendent approach”, as termed by
Garvin (1984), even though it does not facilitate
measurement efforts, reflect the concept’s
meaning. Smith (1993) proposed a definition of
quality such as this:
“Quality is the goodness or excellence of
some thing. It is assessed against accepted
standards of merit for such things and against the
interests/needs of users and other stakeholders”
In his definition, quality cannot be measured
directly. Instead, it must be judgmentally
assessed by considering entity attributes which
are more directly perceptible.
Value-based Approach
In mid-1700s, when Western businessmen
began to target a larger market for their goods, the
practicality of defining quality as excellence was
called into question. For Feigenbaum (1951),
quality does not have a universal meaning of
excellent in any absolute sense. Instead, quality is
excellent based on certain customer conditions
which are the actual use and the selling price.
Thus, the notion of value had to be included in
any quality definition. Feigenbaum’s (1951)
definition states that:
“Quality is best for certain customer
conditions”
Garvin (1984) termed it as the “value-based
approach” in which the quality of the product is
dependent on the satisfactory performance at an
acceptable price. Applying this definition of
quality is important for a long-term survival of a
firm since it takes in to account both effectiveness
and efficiency. Conceptualizing quality as a value
considers multiple attributes to a product and/or
service. According to Feigenbaum (1951),
considering price as an attribute of quality would
keep producers from manufacturing top-quality,
high price products for which there is no demand.
Smith (1993) argued that this concept
misstates the price-quality relationship. Price is
what must be given up in exchange for a product
from the consumer’s standpoint. The product’s
price may affect a consumer’s purchasing
decision but it is in no means an aspect of the
product’s quality. In addition, the complexity of
extracting the individual components that go into
a value judgement to know which components
are important makes this concept lacking.
Moreover, considerable disagreements exists
regarding the inclusiveness of a value definition
of quality. Value and quality may be synonymous
yet they are more frequently treated as separate
constructs (Reeves and Bednar, 1994).
Product-based Approach
Garvin (1984) mentioned that product-based
definitions view quality as a precise and
measurable variable. Two corollaries are obvious
in this approach. First, higher quality can only be
obtained at higher cost. Second, quality is viewed
as an inherent characteristic of goods, rather than
as something ascribed to them. The higher
desirable output is present in the product, the
higher its quality. A product-based approach in
defining quality by Leffler (1992) states that:

“Quality is based on the presence or
absence of a particular attribute. If an attribute
is desirable, greater amounts of that attribute,
under this definition, would label that product or
service as one of a higher quality.”
Critics argue the validity of this approach in
the sense that quality can also be obtained at an
acceptable price. Elshaer (2012) invalidated this
definition by stating that the product-based
approach is not in itself a complete definition of
quality.
Manufacturing-based Approach
In a manufacturing perspective, quality is
the conformance to specifications. These product
specifications serve as the standard for
production performance and output. This highly
operational notion of quality requires products to
have low levels of variabilities around their target
values, thereby minimizing non-conformities or
defects. Shewhart (1931) and Levitt (1972)
defined quality in this approach:
“Quality is defined as conformance to
specifications.”
“Quality of conformance relates to the degree
to which a product meets certain design
standards.”
This “manufacturing-based approach” as
called by Garvin (1984), however, has been
critiqued from the fact that product specifications
may not be adequate enough to become quality
standards. Lawson (1980) as cited in Smith
(1993) reported that there are many designs that
can perform the same given function. A great deal
of arbitrariness in the final specifications for a
product is present. Moreover, Oliver (1981) as
cited in Elshaer (2012) reported that customers
may not know or even care about how well the
product conformed to some internal
specifications they did not require.
User-based Approach
Reeves and Bednar (1994) reported that the
most prevalent definition of quality currently in
use is the degree to which a product or service
meets or exceeds a customer’s expectations. The
strength of this definition lies into its applicability
in the marketplace, were quality must ultimately
be evaluated from the customer’s perspective.
The influence of product quality in customer
purchasing decisions makes this notion of quality
highly salient (Smith, 1993). Defining quality in
this sense allows managers and researchers to
associate subjective factors that are deemed
important to customer’s judgements. Another
view of this concept is the “fitness for use” as
called by Juran (1951) cited in Smith (1993)
where the needs of the customers must be
identified and translated into specific product
attributes. The quality function deployment is the
commonly known technique used to address this
need. Juran (1951) defined quality as:
“the extent to which a product successfully
serves the purpose of the use”
He reported that quality has two elements
namely, quality of design and quality of
conformance. Quality of design refers to
providing customer satisfaction by designing
products that met their needs while quality of
conformance refers to the term “fitness for use”.
The word “use” refers to the customer
requirements while “fitness” refers to the degree
in which the customer requirements are met.
However, customer expectations is very
complicated to measure given that different
customers place different weights on the various
attributes of a product and/or service, not to
mention the fact that they are highly subjective
and inconsistent (Reeves and Bednar, 1994).
Moreover, Garvin (1984) as cited in Smith (1993)
argued that quality cannot be equated with
maximum customer satisfaction since customers
may have different views of different brands.
Other Definitions
Taguchi (1987) added one more approach in
defining quality, which is the social loss
approach. This approach takes into consideration
the external diseconomies, which are losses
caused by harmful side effects. Taguchi's social-
loss function approach in defining quality would
classically categorize cigarettes as low quality
item because of the negative externalities related
with their consumption, even if a the brand has
both high conformance and customer demand.
(Russell and Miles (1998) in Elshaer (2012)).
Taguchi’s definition of quality states that:
“Quality is the loss a product causes to
society after being shipped, other than any losses
caused by its intrinsic functions. This loss can be
caused either by variability in the product’s
function or by adverse side effects”
Smith (1993) also introduced an expanded
view of quality, wherein it “is a property that can
be ascribed to any entity, not just “products-for-
sale”. Quality can be assessed not only in terms
of product users/consumers but also in terms of
various standards and stakeholder perspective.
When defining quality with regards to managerial
and organizational affairs, Smith (1993) adjusted
his proposed definition to:
“Quality is the goodness or excellence of any
product, process, structure or other thing that an
organization consists of or creates. It is assessed
against accepted standards of merit for such
things and against the interests/needs of
producers, consumers and other stakeholders”.
In this definition, Smith (1993) expands the
notion of quality beyond the consumer-based
conceptualizations. The users do not solely
determine product quality, in this sense. A
balanced approach to quality is required among
organizations, where the interests and the needs
of the customers, as well as the legitimate
concerns of other societal stakeholders are taken
into consideration.
A definition by Flood (1993) combines the
approaches determined by Garvin (1984). For
Flood (1993),
“Quality means meeting customer agreed
requirements, formal and informal, at the lowest
cost, first time every time”
Furthermore, Flood (1993) pointed out that
the customers referred in his definition may be
internal or external to the organization. The term
“agreed” means that there is an ideal to strive for
but it needs to be agreed by all parties concerned.
This agreements may be made either by a formal
manner such as in business conversations or it can
also be established informally. The lower cost
refers to not having unnecessary loss or waste in
time, material and effort while the term “first time
every time” sets an ideal to carry through a policy
of failing or going below expectations (Elshaer,
2012).
Reeves and Bednar (1994) believe that a
global definition of quality does not exist; rather,
different definition of quality are appropriate
under different circumstances. After attempting
to clarify and to clarify and explicate definitions
of quality by tracing its evolution, examining its
strengths and weaknesses, and describing the
trade offs inherent in accepting one definition of
quality over another, they came into conclusion
that the fragmented nature of the present
literature suggests that multiple definitions and
models of quality are required to capture the
complexity and richness of the construct.
Some definitions, on the other hand, were
drawn from the ISO 9000 definition of quality.
ISO 9000 defines quality as the “degree to which
a set of inherent characteristics fulfills
requirement”.
Hoyle (2007) modified its definition by
stating that:
“Quality is the extent to which a product or
service successfully serves the purposes of the
user during usage”
Hoyle recognized that the word quality has
many meanings. The meaning used in the context
of ISO 9000 was concerned with the totality of
characteristics that satisfy the needs. However,
quality in ISO 9000:2000 has changed its
meaning and is defined as the degree to which a
set of inherent characteristics fulfil the
requirements. The author argued that the former
definition focused on the entity that was
described as a product or service but with the new
definition, the implication is that quality is
relative to what something should be and what it
is.
 Elshaer (2012), on the other hand, proposed a
new definition of quality drawn from ISO 9000
(2005) definition:
“Quality is a situation when a set of inherent
characteristics consistently fulfil the continuously
changing requirements of the organization’s
customers and other stakeholders”
In here, continuous review of customer
requirements in the definition was emphasized.
Elshaer (2012) also defined it as a relational
attribute, such that it cannot be directly measured,
and its assessment is a judgmental process, which
is very similar to Smith’s (1993) stand regarding
the definition of quality.
Implications
It can be observed that the meaning of
quality has evolved through time with several
researchers and philosophers adapting each other
definitions, criticizing, and attempting to propose
a better definition. The definition of quality
started of as a very vague, with just it referring to
“goodness” or “excellence”. However, as
businesses progress, they realize that they needed
an operational definition of quality in order for
them to have a concrete direction. This struggle
to create an operational definition of quality
yielded to several proposed definitions, some
with conflicting objectives and notions.
Businesses or departments, having different
purposes is responsible for these changes in the
definition of quality.
As mentioned by Garvin (1984) marketing
firms and manufacturing firms have different
views on what quality is. Marketing firms would
typically take a user-based or product-based
approach since higher quality for them is higher
performance. Marketing people see the customers
as the arbiter of quality. What happens behind the
production is far less important. Manufacturing
people, on the other hand, would view quality as
conforming to specifications as they associate
poor quality with high levels of rework and scrap.
With this, a business should make sure that each
of them are in line, or at least aware of the
approach they are employing in terms of quality.
To date, quality in businesses is much more
viewed in a holistic view where “customers” does
not only refer to the external ones, or those who
receive the goods and services. Quality is also
now viewed in terms of internal customers, or
those people behind the processes. Furthermore,
the traditional production based concept of
quality which is to “conform to standards” has
also extended to consider customer expectations
and their perceived quality.
The definition of quality will continue to
evolve through time and the main factor that
would affect this change is the type of business
models and environment that would emerge in the
succeeding years. For example, there has been a
significant transition in the global economy from
manufacturing to services, and this transition
paved way to new definitions of quality by
integrating customer experiences and perceived
quality in the definitions, as mentioned earlier.
Also the business environment has changed by
including a broader range of dynamic factors in a
business relationship where both the customer
and provider expect quality. This paved way to
holistic and multidimensional definitions of
quality as compared to the traditional definitions
that are very compartmentalized.
Reeves and Bednar (1994) stated that
understanding the nature of quality is more than a
“philosophical issue”. Buzzell & Gale (1987)
reported 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”. Aside
from this general view of the significance of
quality in businesses, the definition of quality
also serves as the guide for the managers with
their strategies and decisions, as mentioned in the
managerial implications for each approach in
defining quality above. On another note, as the
definition of quality evolved to being holistic, the
intensity of its significance has also increased.
Considering quality would mean that business
will have to monitor the degree to which the
product or services meets the needs of all
stakeholders – both internal and external
customers. Monitoring this would help one
business stay in the marketplace. Thus, quality
always matter for businesses that want to be
successful and profitable.
Personally, I had a first hand experience on
how a manufacturing company monitor quality
through my internship program. As a quality
assurance department intern, I was able to learn
the processes undergone by the products before it
reaches the hands of the customers. The quality
assurance department was responsible in
ensuring that their products, before shipping, met
the specifications they have identified. Several
laboratory tests from the product itself and its
packaging are conducted before releasing the
products from the plant. They employ the
manufacturing-based approach in this sense.
I was also given the chance to visit other
departments including the marketing and human
resources department. One thing that I noticed in
the company was that their departments are really
isolated from each other and the “vibe” in each
department was really different. The
manufacturing department is so much more
focused on the efficiency of their production and
making sure that rework and waste are
minimized, while the marketing department is
very busy trying to address the customer needs
and expectations with regards to the product in
order to trigger customer purchases and boost
sales.
This observation validates what Garvin
(1984) said about the competing views. Different
firms, businesses, organizations, and/or
departments have their own specific views and
purpose, which means that they must also have
their own specific definition of quality. I agree to
the conclusion of Reeves and Bednar (1994). For
me, quality has no universal definition, and
attempting to arrive at a universal definition
would just complicate things and create conflict.
Arriving at a shared understanding of quality is
possible. However, arriving at one single
definition of quality is impossible. Different
definitions of quality exist on different
circumstances and it is highly dependent on
people and criteria. Measuring quality is also a
challenge since there are several variables in it
that are difficult to measure.
3. Conclusions
The aim of this research was to exhibit the
evolution of the concept of quality through time
and to highlight the past and emerging research
stemming from different fields and subject areas
of quality. Through the systematic literature
review, it was found that to date, there is no single
definition of quality that has been universally
accepted by everyone as each definitions have
their own criticisms and there are several
approaches to which quality can be defined.
Furthermore, the definition of quality is dynamic
as it heavily depends on the business views and
environment. Thus, I believe that it is not
necessary to arrive at a single definition of
quality, but rather a shared understanding of
quality. Its research implication would be that the
challenge is not to establish one definition of
quality but to create definitions which are
comparable and that could account to several
other components that is not yet identified by
existing literatures now.
This study contributed to the literature by
attempting to exhibit the evolution of the
definition of quality, and identifying the factors
that affected and would possibly affect the
change in its meaning. From a practical point of
view, this study was able to identify the different
managerial implications of the existing
definitions of quality, as well as their advantages
in disadvantages when employed. This could
serve as a guide for managers with regards to the
definition of quality that they would adapt in their
respective businesses. Future studies could
consider exploring more the trade-offs inherent in
adapting one definition of quality over the other.
 4. References

Broh, R. A.1982. Managing Quality for Higher Profits. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P.S. 2006. Business Research methods. New York: McGraw Hill.

Elshaer, I. (2012). What is the meaning of quality? Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/57345/

Farner, S. (1996). Quality is still free: Making quality certain in uncertain times. Organizational Dynamics,
25(2), 89-90. doi:10.1016/s0090-2616(96)90030-3

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1951). Quality control as a management method. Electrical Engineering, 68(12), 1069-
1073. doi:10.1109/ee.1949.6443285

Flood, R. L. 1993. Beyond TQM. England : John Wiley & Sons.

Garvin, D. (1984). What does "product quality" really mean? Sloan Management Review, 25-43.

Hoyle, D. (2007). Quality management system. Automotive Quality Systems Handbook, 115-204.
doi:10.1016/b978-075066663-3/50005-1

Ireson, W. G., & Juran, J. M. (1999). Quality-Control Handbook. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 47(258), 317. doi:10.2307/2280757

ISO 9000:2005, Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary, International

Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2000, p. 7.

Miles, M. P. ; Russell, G. R. ; Arnold, D. R. 1995. The quality orientation: An emerging

business philosophy? Review of Business, 17(1), pp.7.

Parr, W. C., & Taguchi, G. (1989). Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products
and Processes. Technometrics, 31(2), 255. doi:10.2307/1268824

Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining Quality: Alternatives and Implications. The Academy of
Management Review, 19(3), 419. doi:10.2307/258934

Routio P. 2009 . Concepts and Definition [online]. Availabe :

http://www2.uiah.fi/projekti/metodi/154.htm.[accessed: 30 March, 2009].

Shewhart, W. A.1931.Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. New York :Van

Nostrond.

Smith, G. F. (1993). The meaning of quality. Total Quality Management, 4(3), 235-244.
doi:10.1080/09544129300000038