In
conducting a seminar on strategy recently, I grew impatient with
the use of
the word "quality" in discussions where it was applied
as a blanket descriptor.
"What is quality" I shouted. "And why," I asked,
not waiting for an answer, "does every mission statement in
the world preach 'quality'?"
"Doesn’t it seem odd to you that everyone
talks about quality, but when we look around, we see mediocrity?"
"Is quality that hard to attain?"
"Or, are people just kidding when they talk
about it?"
Since this was a seminar o strategy, these questions remained safety
rhetorical, but my frustration continued unresolved, until now. Time
to bring this very basic issue out in the open...
The dictionary's first definition for quality is
the "peculiar
and essential character" of something. The second definition
talks about "superiority in kind."
The second definition is what we normally refer to,
but I suspect many people mean the "essential character" more
often when talking about their product or service. Why?
It appears quality doesn't necessarily mean absolute, discrete superiority
over allproducts/services in a category. What
is intended (I believe), is the best you can get for the money spent,
for the standards
you will
measure it by, or compared to similar products. In other words, "quality" is
relative. But relative to what?
Without defining the relevance, quality generalism makes developing
strategy, adopting a position, constructing competitive advantage
and evaluating tactical plans very difficult. A clear sense of the
organization's quality is an integral part of the marketing audit,
and when described properly, (i.e., the essential character and objective
superiority) tells a great deal about the company.
Let's solve this by sorting out quality in discrete terms. My definition
of quality is very simple:
"Quality
is measurable adherence to a set of standards."
The operative
words in this definition are "measurable" and "standards."
What standards? How measurable?
There is support among some in the QC arena for a set of standards
around which quality may be measured. There are eight components
to this set:
Aesthetics -
The variables of design, beauty or artistic components of a products
of a product/service. Measured through preference scoring, attitude
measurement, and other methodologies, attributes like taste, feel,
texture, appearance, ("this uniform is warm and friendly looking,
but authoritative") may be clearly measured and standardized.
Serviceability - Everything needs service/maintenance. The portion of service
which may be contributed the user level, MTBF (mean time between
failures), degree and cost of support |
|
|
provided
by the manufacturer, may be quantified. Ideals and competitive
advantage may be obtained through cost-analysis and customer research
for optimization.
Reliability - The issue of reliability is related to consistent results.
Synonymous with consistency, establishing
a standard, and
upper and lower control limits for results enables customers to "know" they
will always receive the same reliability component of their food.
Performance -
Not surpassingly, the performance of the product or service (0-60
in 5.0 seconds) is key. This is, however, a tricky
area because, unlike the Army, where we used the MIB (more is better)
theory for mostly things (i.e., plastic explosives), too much performance
may be both unnecessary and unusable. Typing performance to relevant
needs and interests of the category users are an important part
of the quantification.
Features -
"The bells and whistles" are both
quantifiable and may add significant competitive advantage. Major
category entrants
such as the Japanese in the areas of VCRs and automobiles made American
counterparts appear stingy and money-grubbing
by charging extra for those same features.
Conformity -
Compatibility is only a part of conformance, a frequently underdeveloped
attribute.
Significant competitive advantage may be
obtained by developing unique conformance in a critical performance
area. One of the best examples is the military: The M-16 assault
rifle utilizes a 5.56mm cartridge, as does the AK-47 can fire M-16
ammunition, but the M-16 cannot fire AK-47 rounds. In a combat
situation with captured supplies on both sides, which weapon is
your preference?
Durability -
Durability encompasses not only longevity, but also ability to
perform under
difficult operating conditions. In our
society fragility or "temperamental" equipment is not tolerated.
The product/service that comes through in the clutch gets "attaboys" and
loyalty which extend far beyond the realistic value or need of
most crisis performances. Recognize it.
Perceived Quality -
Just as in positioning, what is in the customer's mind is critical.
Assessing customer perceptions may demonstrate
that minor adjustments in some of these standards may reap substantialrewards
in this all-important area. This area is so important I would challenge
that any deficit between perceived quality and the actual
built-in quality comprises a waste of money and places the company
at a competitive disadvantage.
All of these parameters may be objectively measured. However, not
all parameters are equally important/applicable to all products/services.
These components
and their objective standards of measurement in the aggregate construct
a mosaic called quality.
Developing measurable standards against the above attributes to
clearly define the essential nature and character or quality of our
products will enable us to truly know our products/services. We will
then be prepared to meet the challenges presented be strategy development
and, importantly, successfully meeting the competition.
|