Omega. Int. J. Mgmt Sci. Vo|. 23. No. 5, pp.

567-575,1995
~ Pergamon Copyright© 1995ElsevierScienceLtd
0305-11483(95)00027-5 Printed in GreatBritain.All rightsreserved
0305-0483/95$9.50+ 0.00

Developing a Quality Costing System:

Key Features and Outcomes
AB PURSGLOVE
Hydro Coatings Ltd, Deeside, Scotland

BG DALE
Quality Management Centre, UMIST, Manchester, England

(Received November 1994; accepted after revision May 1995)

This paper discusses the development and operation of a system of quality costing in a manufacturer
of coatings for industrial applications. The work reported is of particular value since most of the
well-poblicised material on quality costing is in relation to mechanical and electrical engineering type
situations. Attention is drawn to the difficulties encountered in establishing the system, including the
adaptiuns and additions needed to the cost elements which had been identified from the quality costing
literature, deciding what was a quality-related cost, determining the reporting format for quality
costs, the elimination of double counting, and dealing with the operating practices of accountants.
The collection, reporting and uses of quality cost data are also examined. It is also pointed out that
many of the practical findings support much of the quality costing theory.

Key words--quality costing, coatings manufacture, quality cost collection, quality cost reporting,
quality cost uses

INTRODUCTION There are a wide variety of ways in which

QUALITY COSTING AS a quality management
technique has been around for nearly four
decades, since the seminal paper of Feigenbaum
[9]. Today, there is much interest in the
subject. A number of organizations are now
seeking practical evidence on quality-related
costs and others are developing formalized
quality costing systems. Organizations are
keen to develop theirknowledge of the concept to
help them better understand the effectiveness
of their decisions on wastage and to save
money. This is particularly the case in the
automotive industry where major customers
are looking closely at the cost base of their
suppliers and for evidence of quality cost
collection and use.
567
organizations can set about collecting and
measuring quality costs. It is usually argued that
the approach taken is dependent upon the
objectives of the exercise and the audience for the
resulting data (see [7] and [18]). However,
whether the approach is based on the preven-
tion-appraisal-failure categorization (BS.6143:
Part 2 [1]), or it is activity-based to match the
ways in which a business operates (BS.6143: Part
1 [1]), or it utilizes the price of conformance and
price of non-conformance [5], or is based on any
other form of categorization it should always be
tailored to meet the needs of the organization.
Dale and Plunkett [7] outline a number of issues,
in the form of a detailed checklist, which should
be considered by an organization in deciding the
approach to be taken to quality costing.
568 Pursglove and Dale--Developing a Quality Costing System
Whilst there is a reasonable amount of
practical 'hands-on' advice in the quality
costing literature (e.g. [10, 13, 15, 19]) there are
few published examples of a practical nature
giving specific details on the costs that are
included or excluded in the main element
groupings in the chosen cost categorization
and showing how the costs were collected. The
material presented in this paper helps to fill this
gap.
The company which is at the focus of the study
is a leading manufacturer of a range of advanced
industrial and protective coatings for use in
industry. The coatings have many demanding
end uses in environmentally unfriendly situ-
ations. The company is located on one site and
employs around 300 people. Some seven or so
years ago a number of events caused the
company's Managing Director to decide that a
radical improvement in quality performance was
needed, not only to increase profitability but to
ensure the survival of the business. These events
are summarized below:
• It was realized that the company had no
positive quantifiable measures of customer
satisfaction. Quality performance was
measured in terms of number of customer
complaints, number of rejected batches,
level of redundant stock and production
yield losses.
• An increase was experienced in the number
of customer complaints. The company was
in the business of selling technically
advanced industrial coatings, at a high
profit margin. Their quality image was an
important marketing tool and a significant
rise in customer complaints could under-
mine these strengths.
• In conjunction with an increasing level
of manufacturing yield losses there was an
overuse of undocumented raw materials,
resulting in significant stock losses. These
costs amounted to 1-2% of annual sales
turnover.
• A major complaint was received from
one of the company's main customers; a
problem with communications had re-
suited in a large batch of paint being
manufactured incorrectly. The problem
was not detected during routine quality
control activities and the batch was
shipped to the customer and subsequently
applied to their product, this resulted in a
major claim against the company.
The Managing Director decided that a process
of continuous quality improvement was needed
to address problems such as these. This included
a number of initiatives along with investments
in capital and management time. Early on in
the improvement process, senior management
sought answers to a number of questions,
including:
is the investment cost effective?
what progress is being made?
what benefits are being achieved?
Quality costing was seen as a way of providing
answers to these types of questions. The quality
costing initiative emanated from the Managing
Director and Technical Manager and not from
the Accountant. The reasons for this are
two-fold:
Much of the work involved in introducing
and developing the quality improvement pro-
cess was the responsibility of the technical
function through its quality assurance activity.
Extra resources had been made available for
improvement activities and therefore the techni-
cal function had a vested interest in proving that
the quality improvement process was cost
effective.
Most management accounting is based on
tried and tested rules and practices that are well
defined and documented. Very few rules and
practices have been developed regarding quality
costs and those that have are very general. This
ambiguity was the main reason why quality cost
reporting was not seen by the Accountant as his
responsibility.
CONSTRUCTING THE QUALITY
COSTS SYSTEM
The initial quality cost elements were taken
from [14], and used as a reference point on which
the system could be developed. Similar elements
can be found in most of the texts dealing with
quality costing (e.g. [1] and [2]). Considerable
adaptation and additions to the cost elements
were needed to fit them to the practical aspects
of coatings manufacture. In identifying and
defining the cost elements, much attention was
given to how the business functioned and what
cost data were or could be made available within
 Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5
a reasonable time frame. The specific problems
encountered, included:
• The calculation of the cost of re-tests on
reworked material was not practical.
Reworked material was always mixed
with good material (the amount dependent
on the circumstances) and this made
the calculation of the cost of re-test
impractical.
• No data were available or likely to be so in
the near future on the machine downtime
attributable to quality-related problems.
• Costs under warranty contracts do not
apply to coatings in the same way as in the
case of mechanical-type goods.
• Stock evaluation in relation to quality-
related problems was carried out on an
ad hoc basis and this made it impractical
to cost.
• The costs involved, during the early stages
of the quality improvement process, with
quality planning in terms of process
control costs and improvement projects
were unclear and not readily available.
• Technical service costs, which are con-
sidered as prevention costs by writers such
as Juran [14], Campanella [2] and BS.6143:
Part 2 [1], were regarded by the company
as external failure costs.
These types of problems were discussed at
some length with the Accountant who knew
the likelihood of data being made available
for the cost elements identified. The Accountant
also provided invaluable advice in helping to
interpret the various reports from the costing
system. The approach adopted was for the
Quality Assurance Department representative to
describe the category to be costed (e.g. yield
losses) to the Accountant who would then try
to extract this information from the costing
system data. It was not always clear what systems
data information was relevant from a quality
management viewpoint. In some cases, infor-
mation from the cost accounting system would
be combined with other information to give the
required quality cost. For example, the 'make
cost per litre' for a particular department
retrieved from the cost accounting system was
multiplied by the number of litres rejected
obtained from the production report, in this way
giving the manufacturing cost in monetary terms
of the rejected batches.
569
When designing a quality costing system
the scope of the system is difficult to specify as
it is not known at the outset what sort of
accuracy, detail and traceability is needed. The
system was initially designed with a wide scope
covering the whole operation but without much
detail. It was hoped that subsequent usage of the
system and feedback of information could be
used to refine and develop the system in clearly
identified areas.
The cost elements decided upon and the
sources of information are given in [17].
As already mentioned the first difficulty
encountered was deciding upon the cost elements
and a suitable format for their reporting.
It was not easy to decide what was or was not
a quality cost. Dale and Plunkett [7] are of the
view that definitions is a key issue in quality
costing and devote a complete chapter of their
book to a discussion of the issues involved in
helping to decide this issue. The definition used
at the company was "costs that are avoidable by
improvement action". This would seem to apply
to all the categories used except for quality
control functions under the appraisal costs
heading.
The question of whether testing is a quality
cost was also the cause of some dispute.
Carson [4] is positive that testing is about
detecting defects, that it is an appraisal cost,
and there is an onus on the manufacturing
department to "get it right the first time".
Dale and Plunkett [7] acknowledge this
argument but balance it with circumstances
where testing may not be a quality cost but
an integral part of manufacturing operations
(e.g. state of technology, inability to give
guarantees without testing, inability to get
insurance cover without testing and a contrac-
tual requirement of the customer). These latter
circumstances, although genuine testing costs,
are not 'avoidable' by the direct action of the
department or indeed the company. In certain
cases, testing is part of a company's contracted
agreement with the customer, in other cases
customers require a test report with each batch
of coating. These cases fall outside the 'avoidable
costs' guidance but it was decided to include
these aspects of testing costs on the grounds
of simplicity at least in the first instance,
as differentiating between avoidable and
unavoidable testing costs would have proved
complex.
570 Pursglove and Dale--Developing a Quality Costing System
The natural precision and attention to detail
of accountants was another difficulty
encountered. It took considerable effort to
persuade the Accountant to use assumptions and
approximations when these were necessary.
Attempting to tie down every last detail can
seriously hinder the introduction of the quality
costing system. In the view of the authors it
is better to have a figure almost correct than
to have no data at all, provided this is noted
as such on the quality cost report. The quality
cost report need not have the same accuracy
as a balance sheet, however it requires to be
substantiated by other accounts data in order to
remain credible.
The elimination of double counting (i.e. the
same cost already counted can be included in
other complex accounts system data) is much
more difficult than it sounds. The Accountant
was very helpful in tracing possible cases of
double counting. In checking for double
counting a process flow chart of the movement
of material was found to be useful. This was
also used in identifying the sources of failure
costs.
Certain costs were very difficult or impossible
to measure at the outset and threatened to delay
start-up of the system. The alternative was to
leave them out of the calculations. The decision
taken was to brief the appropriate manager
about the data required and ask for as accurate
an estimate as possible of frequency of
occurrence, the cost of man hours, the volume
of work, etc. This is not ideal, as experience
indicates that these costs do not change after the
initial estimation is made and so can only be used
to contribute towards the total cost figure.
Sometimes improvement cannot be detected and
people are loath to amend their initial estimates
in the light of changed circumstances. For these
reasons, estimates should only be regarded as
a last resort or a temporary measure.
The collection of external failure costs
involved a considerable amount of manual
collating and calculation. Company restructur-
ing, at the time of setting-up the system, with
the inevitable rationalization of personnel led
to difficulties in getting timely and accurate
information as departments adapted to leaner
staffing levels. The difficulties experienced in
getting such data provided an indication that
some departments viewed the quality costing
project as a low priority.
COLLECTION AND. REPORTING OF
QUALITY COSTS
The quality costing information necessary to
establish the system was obtained from three
main sources:
Normal accounting data
Cost of yield losses
Raw material cost of rejected batches
Cost of dumping material
Cost of raw material stock losses
Cost of settlements/credits
Cost of writedowns on finished stock values
Cost of appraisal and prevention
Data specifically calculated for quality costing
Mix variance costs
Labour and overhead costs of rejected batches
Transport costs associated with quality
problems
Cost of administration of complaints
Estimates of costs
These estimates include:
Management of redundant stock usage
Technical Services Department visits to
customers to discuss and analyse quality
problems
Work on quality problems by the research
laboratory.
The quality costing information is entered and
stored on a computer spreadsheet (Lotus 1-2-3).
This facilitates the calculation, analysis, report-
ing and generation of appropriate graphs and
tables.
The costs are collected and reported monthly,
as a joint effort between the Quality Assurance
and Accounting Departments. The current year
quality costs and departmental internal failure
costs, on a month by month basis, are detailed in
the monthly reports of the Quality Assurance
Department and the Technical Manager. These
reports are distributed to the Managing Director
and members of the senior management team.
Unusual events, adverse trends or deviations
from the norm are highlighted along with the
investigatory action.
In order to relate the total quality cost to
level of production output, total quality costs
as a percentage of raw material usage cost
is measured and reported. This measure was
chosen in preference to metrics such as the
percentage of production litres or per 1000
 Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5
batches because it keeps the measure in terms of
money enabling easy calculation of the savings.
From the outset it was clear that the major
contribution to quality costs was internal failure.
This fact and requests from management and
director level resulted in a monthly generation of
information specific to the internal failure costs
of the company's departments.
When the quality costing system was first
started, historical data for the previous 9 months
were compiled. The requests for departmentally
specific internal failure costs came approximately
six months after launch of the system. This meant
that sufficient data were available for a moving
annual total (MAT) graph to be constructed,
providing an assessment of trends. This periodic
review of cumulative results and trends is
circulated to the Managing Director, members of
the senior management team and other interested
personnel.
USES OF QUALITY COST DATA
Two specific uses made of the quality cost data
are now described:
Internal failure costs comprise 70% of the total
quality costs and within this the largest cost
elements are mix variance and yield variance at
26 and 19% of the total quality costs respectively.
An analysis of internal failure costs over a 16
month period for the three main manufacturing
departments highlighted specific areas for
improvement.
In an effort to reduce yield variance costs a
number of initiatives were employed (i) batch
cards with yield losses over 10% were returned to
the department supervisor for explanation
before filing, (ii) an improvement in cleanliness
and housekeeping was encouraged, this tied in
with the work needed to achieve ISO 9002 [12]
registration, (iii) the coatings are dispensed into
tins by weight but are sold by volume, which
means that accurate measurement of specific
gravity is necessary for consistency and pack
weight accuracy.
A study was undertaken to examine the
effect of measurement errors on specific gravity
and the conclusion reached was that greater
accuracy was needed. Consequently, a more
accurate measuring balance was purchased for
the works laboratory and a study of packing
accuracy and precision was carried out to
quantify the extent of the problem. The study
571
concluded that the packing precision was
poor and due almost entirely to the operatives
use of the filling equipment. Some equipment was
not sufficiently accurate for certain applications.
The packing accuracy data showed that most
packs were overfilled. This is necessary when
filling to minimum fill regulations, but 33% of
the batches tested were more than 1% overfilled.
The fact that batches are dispensed in 25-205
litre packs indicates that this level of overfill is
significant.
From the data collected, it was forecast
that the company were overfilling by approx.
57,800 litres per annum. The problem depart-
ments were identified and recommendations
made to overcome the inaccuracies. These were
actioned by the management team and included
new filling equipment, new packing methods,
operator training and an increased awareness
of the importance of accurate filling tech-
niques. One minor modification to the packing
method of a product which was produced in very
large amounts resulted in a yield increase of
2-3% on packing, in addition to an increase in
accuracy.
A number of efforts were made to reduce mix
variance costs over a period of time. In one
department a statistical process control pro-
gramme was implemented, in which control
charts were constructed for initial colour
difference to standard and initial viscosity before
any tinting to shade or adjustment to viscosity
was carried out. The object was to make the first
sample as close to the required specifications as
possible and so minimize any additions needed.
A system was installed in the department for
colour matching the batches by computer, which
speeded up the process of colour matching and
also optimized the amount of expensive stainer
used to tint a batch to shade.
Both these initiatives assisted in ensuring that
the actual amounts of raw materials used in a
batch, closely matched the agreed formulation,
so decreasing the mix or usage variance.
A number of other means were also used to
address the remaining internal failure cost
elements. These included improvements in
batch card discipline (i.e. operatives recording
everything they add to a batch). The reporting
and analysis of the cost of rejected batches
helped in identifying the significant problems.
These aspects were addressed by the use of
multidisciplinary problem solving teams.
572 Pursglove and Dale--Developing a Quality Costing System
QUALITY COSTING OUTCOMES
The total quality costs expressed as a
percentage of annual sales turnover for year 1
(the year following the launch of the improve-
ment process), year 2, year 3 and year 4 are 4.1,
2.6, 2.4 and 2.5% respectively. These figures
compare favourably with the literature estimates
of 5-25% [6]. However, whilst the major quality
costs are included in the analysis it must be
acknowledged that many of the company's
quality costs remain unquantified and inevitably
the total quality cost figure must be larger.
Quality cost figures taken from the literature
are of dubious value except as a crude
benchmark, since in most cases they are not
accompanied by details of how they are collected,
calculated, and what is included. Dale and
Plunkett [7] give strong warnings about the
dangers of making comparisons as do Eldridge
and Dale [8] who make the point that an
accounting standard does not exist for quality
costing leaving the decision on what is included
or excluded to the judgement of the quality costs
collector. It is also doubtful that a general figure
for manufacturing industry is meaningful.
Effective quality costs performance for one
industry (e.g. heavy engineering) may be totally
different from another industry (e.g. printing).
The total quality costs as a percentage of
raw material usage also shown a year to year
reduction, except for year 4 where the cost level
is running at the year 3 level. This rise in costs
occurred at about the same time as a significant
number of redundancies were made along with
a major change in the company's management
structure. The company became less of an
autonomous unit with many aspects of manage-
ment being carried out under divisional
control, e.g. Quality Assurance, Quality Control,
Purchasing, Production Management, Accoun-
tancy, Marketing and Technical Management.
Only Sales and Commercial Management stayed
under the direct control of the company. On
average, the total quality costs, which exhibit
some fluctuation, early in year 1 are about 11%
of raw material usage costs (see below).
The majority of this decrease in quality costs
has been brought about by reductions in internal
failure costs. External failure costs have also
fallen, though part of this may be due to
difficulties encountered in collecting external
failure costs after organizational restructuring.
The collection of external failure costs involves
a considerable amount of manual collating and
calculation and the rationalization of staffing
levels led to some difficulties in gathering
accurate and timely information. The collection
of internal failure costs is not affected in the
same way as the data are largely generated by
computer. It is clear from the research
observations that the Quality Assurance Depart-
ment give a higher priority to the identification
of quality costs than is the case with other
departments.
Appraisal and prevention costs as a percentage
of raw material usage remained steady for year
1, year 2 and year 3 and in year 4 showed a
decrease. In year 4 a decrease in expenditure on
prevention and appraisal is accompanied by an
increase in internal failure costs; the extrapolated
prevention and appraisal costs reduced by 0.5%
of raw material usage costs, while internal
failures rose by 0.6% of raw material usage
costs. This finding supports the well-documented
quality costing theory and the assumptions
underlying the notional 'economic' cost of
quality models, see for example [3, 5, 11, 16].
An analysis of the inter-relationship between
the major cost categories for the 4 years in
which data are available shows that, in general,
internal failure comprises 68% of total quality
costs whilst external failure costs and prevention
and appraisal costs comprise 14 and 18%
respectively.
As the process of quality improvement
progressed it is clear from the data reported that
real cost savings were made. In view of this it
was surprising that no requests were made by
members of the senior management team for
the Quality Assurance Department to quantify
the net cost savings (i.e. amount saved less
amount spent) made over a period of time.
A quantification has nevertheless been
attempted. In quantifying the gross savings
the simple assumption made was that the initial
total quality costs were 11% of raw material
usage and any reduction in this percentage is a
cost saving as a direct result of the process of
quality improvement. The results are shown in
Table 1.
These figures indicate that the investment
made in quality improvement was paid back
within the first year. The heaviest costs were
incurred during the introduction of the improve-
ment process and these reduced in each

Table I. Estimates of net savings
Amount spent on
quality improvement
Year Costs saved initiatives
1 0.36% 0.33%
2 1.10% 0.16%
3 1.56% 0.08%
4 1.33% 0.05%
All costs expressed as percentage of sales turnover.
subsequent year as the process gained momen-
tum. It should be noted that the amount of
money invested in the quality improvement
process was impracticable to cost on a monthly
basis and could only be done retrospectively to
give annual figures.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Did the quality costing system meet its
objectives?
The initial objectives of the quality costing
system were:
• To measure the success of the quality
improvement process.
• To justify the quality improvement process
in financial terms by showing that the
investment was cost-effective.
These initial objectives were largely met.
The quality cost information was a clear
indicator that the process of quality improve-
ment was cost effective. These quality cost
reductions were substantiated by other measures
of quality (e.g. the downward trend in the
number of customer complaints and the total
quality costs as a percentage of annual sales
turnover) showed that the company was moving
in the right direction.
As company management became more
familiar with the concept of quality costing a
number of secondary objectives or opportunities
became apparent. It was felt that quality costs
could also be used in:
• Allocating resources for quality improve-
ment projects.
• Targeting areas in which to focus
improvement effort.
• Helping to set and monitor departmental
quality targets.
Although some use was made of quality
costs in those areas, quality costs were not
employed to their full potential as an analytical
Omega, Vol. 23, No. 5 573
tool. Quality costs were not used to set and
monitor departmental quality targets. Some
Net saving initial work was done to introduce target setting
0.03% as an aid to quality improvement but this did not
0.94%
1.48%
get off the ground, mainly due to changes made
1.28% in the management structure of the company.
The main use of quality costs data was to identify
improvement opportunities and to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the quality improvement
process.
Senior management's views on quality costing
The company's current Managing Director
(formerly the Sales and Marketing Manager)
regards the reporting of quality costs as
essential to the business. One of his first tasks
on taking up his new appointment was to
confirm with the re-organized Quality Assurance
Department, the continuation of the monthly
reporting of these costs. He felt that quality
costs were successful in focusing senior
managements' attention on product and
service quality. In his former role as Sales and
Marketing Manager it gave him the cost effect of
holding stocks of product as against making to
order, helping him to analyse the business in a bid
to reduce stocks and hence reduce redundant
stock and prevent the making of material
unlikely to be sold. He also commented that
whilst more use could be made of the data, they
did show the positive effects of quality
improvement activities and this in itself was a
motivator.
He felt that quality cost information needed
to be communicated more to people at lower
levels in the organizational hierarchy though he
was not sure what form this should take. He was
also of the view that quality costs should be
discussed at the company's monthly manage-
ment meetings in order to force people to make
painful decisions particularly as quality costs
now seem to have bottomed out and are on the
increase.
When asked about size he said he was not sure
of what size of quality costs to expect before
reporting began, but, on reflection, he considered
that they were larger than he would have
expected. This is an interesting observation in
view of the fact that many protagonists of
quality costing believe that expressing quality
data in money is a means of stimulating
senior management interest in Total Quality
Management.
574 Pursglove and Dale--Developing a Quality Costing System
Limitations o f the quality costing system
A number of internal failure costs are not
included in the quality costing calculations.
The cost of machine downtime is not calculated.
A rejected batch means a machine is idle for
a period of time. This cost should be fairly
easy to calculate with the help of production
management but is unlikely to be significant cost.
Disposition costs are also not included. The
estimate of research personnel time under
prevention and appraisal costs will cover some of
this but this does not change with time. If an
estimate of cost has to be used it would be more
accurate to relate the unit cost of disposition to
the amount of material re-worked in the month.
The cost of dumping material accounts for the
loss of raw material and the cost of the used
packaging. The loss in value from good stock to
raw material cost is recorded under the 'value
write-downs' element. The cost of the waste
disposal contractor is not included. This may be
difficult to cost as some waste is taken free to
be re-cycled whilst the more noxious substances
are removed by a waste contractor, at a price.
Some external failures are not included. Where
material is returned for reworking or dumping,
the packaging (e.g. tins, drums, barrels) is not
costed. This would not be a particularly difficult
aspect to cost but again is unlikely to be
significant.
The technical service costs are an estimate and
do not change with time. They do not reflect
the level of activity of the Technical Services
Department directed to quality-related prob-
lems. This element could be made more
meaningful by relating a unit cost for technical
services to the level of customer complaints.
This would still be a coarse measure but at least
it would provide an approximation of the work
done. The ideal situation would be for the
technical services representatives to log their
quality-related work and report this to a central
point.
Prevention and appraisal costs are combined.
It would be useful to have these costs reported
separately, as appraisal activities cannot reduce
costs while prevention can have a positive
influence. The true cost of prevention is greater
than the company's system suggests. M a n y of the
'one-off' costs in introducing the quality
improvement process are not included in the
calculations.
Future development of the system
The quality costing has concentrated on what
are believed to be the company's major quality
costs. The criterion used for cost collection was
'need to know' rather than 'nice to know'. In this
the strategy was effective in that the investment
in a process of continuous process was proved to
be justified and specific quality improvement
projects identified.
It will not require much effort to collect the
remaining internal and external failure costs. It
is perceived that most of them are not great but
if they are not collected and displayed the the
truth or otherwise of this perception will not be
known. The biggest shortfall is not separating
out prevention from appraisal costs. The
intention should be always to consider appraisal
costs as a target for cost reduction. However, to
collect these costs it will be necessary for some
staff to record, using for example weekly returns
on ½day increments (as suggested by Dale and
Plunkett [7]) how they spend their time. Taking
into account the state of development of the
quality improvement process and operating
experience of the quality costing this should not
present a problem and little suspicion and
resistance to this recording of data is envisaged.
REFERENCES
1. BS.6143: Guide to the Economics of Quality: Part 1
(1992), Process Cost Model, Part 2 (1990), Prevention,
Appraisal and Failure Model, British Standards
Institution, London.
2. Campanella J (Ed.) (1990) Principles of Quality Costs:
Principles, Implementation, and Use. ASQC Quality
Press, Milwaukee.
3. Campanella J and Corcoran FJ (1983) Principles of
quality costs. Qual. Progr. 16, 17-22.
4. Carson JK (1986) Quality costing--a practicalapproach.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Mgmt 3, 54-63.
5. Crosby PB (1979) Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
6. Dale BG and Plunkett JJ (1990) The Casefor Costing
Quality. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
7. Dale BG and Plunkett JJ (1995) Quality Costing.
Chapman & Hall, London.
8. Eldridge S and Dale BG (1989) Quality costing: the
lessons to be learnt from a study carried out in two
phases. Engng Costs Prod. Econ. 18, 33-44.
9. Feigenbaum AV (1956) Total quality control. Harvard
Busin. Rev. 34, 93-101.
10. Groocock JM (1980)Qualitycost control in ITT Europe.
Qual. Assur. 6, 37-44.
11. Hagan JT (Ed.) (1986) Principles of Quality Costs.
American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee.
12. ISO 9002 (1994) Quality systems-model for quality
assurance in production and installation. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
 Omega, 1Iol. 23, No. 5
13. Juran JM (1974) Quality Control Handbook, 2nd edition.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
14. Krzikowski K (1963) Quality control and quality
costs within the mechanical engineering industry.
Proceedings of the 7th EOQC Conference, Copenhagen,
pp. 42-48.
15. Peet WJ (1990) Poor man's guide to quality costs.
Annual Quality Congress Transactions, Vol. 44,
pp. 839-844. American Society for Quality Control,
Milwaukee.
16. Ponemon LL (1990) Accounting for quality costs.
J. Cost Mgmt 4, 44-48.
575
17. Pursglove AB (1994) A comparison of quality costing in
three coating manufacturers. M.Sc. Thesis, Manchester
School of Management, UMIST.
18. Sandretto MJ (1995) What kind of a cost system do you
need? Harvard Busin. Rev. Jan/Feb, 110-118.
19. Whitehall FB (1986) Review of problems with a quality
costing system. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Mgmt 3, 43-59.
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Dr B. G. Dale, Quality
Management Centre, Manchester School of Management,
UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 IQD, UK.