Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Defining quality as fitness for use ([16] Juran, 1962) rather than conformance to specifications implies an interpretation that products or services are meant to satisfy customer needs. It means that quality performance measures are no longer the monopoly of engineering in comparison with standards (i.e. product orientation) but they should also consider customer opinions (i.e. people orientation) since customers are the ultimate judges of quality ([11] Garver, 2003). Therefore, [6] Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard (2002) present the new TQM (Total Quality Management) metrology to measure quality from a customer perspective through satisfaction of both internal and external customers as well as other stakeholders. Relying only on customer satisfaction may not be sufficient; at least it is an implicit interpretation of the reason that TQM continues its evolution in search for a "new" quality definition. According to Aune (in [30] Edvarsson and Gustafsson, 1999), quality is:
... maximum contribution to the health and happiness of all people involved in its production, use, destruction, and reuse. This with a minimum of total life cycle costs, assuming a minimum use of energy and other resources and with generally acceptable consequences for the society and environment at large.
This definition of quality consists of two important elements, i.e. contribution and cost. Contribution refers to what customers receive and cost refers to what customers and other stakeholders sacrifice. Summation or trade-off between what customers receive (e.g. benefits) and what they sacrifice (e.g. cost) determines customer value of a product or service ([5] Bounds et al. , 1994; [9] Dumond, 2000). [22] Nicholls (1993) states that the focus on customer value can be regarded as the fourth phase of the TQM evolution.
According to [15] Juran (1951), the value of quality is a composite of value inherent in the design and value inherent in the conformance to that design. This means that improving design quality and conformance quality will likely increase value. A study in a Swedish wood-flooring manufacturing company indicates that about 80 percent of the total quality costs in the company are failure costs (both internal and external), and 20 percent is the sum of prevention and appraisal costs ([25] Setijono, 2005). We may then perceive that there is a high amount of "waste" (i.e. defects, non-conformities, inefficiencies, etc.)...