Quality of design and quality of conformance:

Two elements of quality structure – design quality and conformance quality are recognized and

described in the literature.

Quality of design is defined as a fit between a product’s (service’s) design and customer needs; quality of

conformance is defined as a fit between the attributes of an actual product and its specification. In order to

satisfy customers, quality should be high on both dimensions. At the same time these quality dimensions

have not been analyzed systematically so far.

On the one hand, there is no sufficient distinction between these two measures in reference to many

TQM themes, which are addressed too “totally” in the sense that quality is taken as a whole, undivided

phenomenon. For instance, an indiscriminate stance permeates the literature on continuous improvement –

one of the pillars of TQM. It is not clear often improvement of which component is addressed. However,

improvement of design quality and conformance quality are very different processes in terms of the ends,

tools and functions involved. To take just one aspect, they have different effect on quality costs, which

include prevention, appraisal and failure costs. The majority of TQM texts draw the following picture:

quality improvement (taken indistinctively) raises prevention and appraisal costs but at the same time

decreases failure costs to a larger extent and in balance, therefore, reduces overall quality costs. This logic

can be accepted relating to conformance quality (fewer errors, defects, rework, customer complaints, etc.) but

is rather dubious when applied to improvement of design quality, which in many cases makes a product more

expensive. Such an indiscriminate approach generates one-sided conclusions and in turn creates excessive

expectations among practitioners. When actual performance falls short of these expectations, disappointment

with TQM practices ensues.

Some sources differentiate between reactive and proactive quality improvement (see, e.g., Shiba,

Graham and Walden, 1993), which to a certain extent coincides with improvement of conformance and

design quality. Though this differentiation represents an important step forward, it is not sufficient. The

primary difference between two processes is what is being improved (quality of design or quality of
1
conformance), and this insight allows us to comprehend how the improvement is being undertaken. Since

continuous quality improvement is normally addressed in an undifferentiated fashion, critical questions are

not asked, for example: on which quality component should an organization be focused? What circumstances

make design quality paramount and what circumstances make conformance quality paramount? What should

be the right proportion in the allocation of resources between them, including managerial attention? These

issues are not addressed, thereby decimating the TQM model’s theoretical soundness.

On the other hand, quality of design and quality of conformance are referred to as separate,

independently coexisting phenomena. Often separation goes even farther –quality of conformance is

regarded as one of the definitions of quality (Garvin, 1988; Reeves, and Bednar, 1994). In that manner a part

becomes the whole or at least, one of perspectives on the whole. Separation between two components of

quality structure leads to the ignoring of the interaction and conflict between them. These two elements are in

fact two opposite sides of a paradox, and the tension between them not only exists but plays a significant role

in organizational dynamics. This tension also makes quality management more complicated and challenging.

Two dimensions of quality and their differences

Quality of conformance as compliance with specifications reflects an operations, or internally

oriented aspect of quality. Adherence to specifications stems from a high level of consistency and low

variation in internal processes. Better conformance quality is achieved when things are done right, i.e., when

the efficiency is high. Quality of conformance can be rather easily measured through statistical means such

as process capability (the ratio between specification and control limits). Tools for improvement of

conformance quality are tools of statistical quality control such as control charts, scatter diagrams etc.

As a match between product features and customer expectations and needs, quality of design is a

market, or externally oriented, aspect of quality. Design quality is high when the product is “right”, so it is

oriented towards effectiveness rather than efficiency. According to Widrick et al, quality of design is

determined by three factors: deep understanding of customer requirements, translation of these requirements

into a product and continuous improvement of the design process. Such an improvement is based on close

cooperation among marketing, research and development, and engineering.

2
 Since design quality represents a fit between product features and customer needs, it reflects not just

internal attributes of a product itself but interaction between those attributes and external factors. Design

quality may change as a result of improvements in product features or incorporation of new features into

existing products as well as the development of new products. It may alter also without any change in the

product itself: when needs and expectations rise while product features remain the same, a misfit between the

two factors is generated and quality of design declines. By the same token, if new, attractive features are

developed, that does not necessarily mean that design quality grows. In the case that needs and expectations

grow faster than does the level of product features, a gap between expectations and features also arises, and

design quality decreases. Though the product itself has improved, it did not improve fast enough. In order to

keep the same level of this dimension, features have to be enhanced at the same pace as customer needs

grow.

Sometimes design quality is conceived of in a narrower fashion as “quality of design process”,

oriented towards better manufacturability and reliability of a new product (Flynn, and Hartley, 1991). In that

case design quality is viewed as part of internal quality performance (Fynes, and Voss, 2002).

Manufacturability orientation may be regarded as internal customer focus because production and adjacent

functions are subsequent stages in the value chain following functions directly involved in the design

process. In a more inclusive fashion, design quality can be seen as fit between product features and needs of

both external and internal customers. For the reason that external customers are more pivotal for an

organization than internal customers and requirements of internal customers are no more than derivative of

the needs and expectations of external customers, quality of design is viewed here in mostly outward fashion.

A general definition of design quality as a match between product characteristics and customer needs

can be specified by invoking the concept of a zone of tolerance in customer expectations (Zeithaml, and

Bitner, 2003, p.63). A tolerance zone is the distance between desired and adequate levels of expectations. A

desired level of expectations stands for the maximum level of customers’ expectations while the adequate

level reflects the minimum level of quality that is acceptable to customers. Design quality is the highest when

there is no discrepancy between values in product specification and corresponding values in a product’s
3
tolerance zone. Specification also represents a “zone”, or a range between upper and lower specification

limits; a target, or nominal value usually lies in the middle.1 It is logical to assert that specification limits

should be in accordance with an adequate level of expectations, whereas nominal value should be close to a

desired level of expectations.

A misfit between expectations and specification can take several forms:

1. The scope of specification is broader than the zone of tolerance. This means that specification

limits are too far away from nominal value and are below minimum customer expectations. For instance,

customer expectations may lie between 5 (adequate level) and 10 (desired level). The nominal value is 10 as

well but specification limits are on level 3.2

2. The specification has the right scope but is not centered. The nominal value is worse than the

desired level, and specification limits are worse than the adequate level. Referring to the previous

example, the specification lies between 3 and 8. In both cases a mismatch between specifications and

expectations implies loss of design quality.

3. The nominal value is better than the desired level of expectations, say 12 (sub case a), or the specification

range is narrower than tolerance zone, e.g. lies between 7 to 10 (sub case b). This case is less straightforward

than previous cases since there is no loss of quality; on the contrary, the features that are provided are better,

or higher than customer needs and expectations. One possibility is that customers will be highly satisfied

with such a product because the product exceeds their expectations. Still another possibility is that tight

specification is not needed by a customer or at least cannot be afforded. An unnecessary or excessive level of

features brings about additional costs and higher prices and consequently reduces product value. We have to

bear in mind that design quality is a set of attractive features for customers rather than features that have a

high level of technical performance. Enhancement of features beyond what is needed should not be regarded

as quality improvement.

1
Sometimes, there is only one specification limit, whereas the other one is not relevant. For instance, waiting time in a line has a
target of 0 and maximum level of, say, 15 minutes, which represents the upper specification limit. A lower specification limit does
not exist here.
2
The notion of higher specification limit should not cause confusion: the fact that it is higher than nominal value does not mean
that it is better. What matters is the absolute value of distance between the nominal value and specification limit.
4
 Since different customers, or different market segments have different needs and expectations, the

same product represents different quality of design for different customer segments. In order to achieve the

highest possible quality of design, a company has to concentrate on a market segment that values its product

most, or in other words, where the discrepancy between product features and customer needs is minimal.

This can be depicted by the formula:

Qdopt =|F-N|→0

Where Qdopt – optimal quality of design;

F- features of a product;

N – needs of customers.

For other (“wrong”) segments, there is a misfit between product features and customers’ needs:

either the performance of features is lower than expectations: F<N, which represents low design quality; or

features are excessive and the customers do not need them or cannot afford them: F>N, which represents loss

of value.

A thorough description of design and conformance quality allows us to pinpoint the differences

between them.

1. Design quality is a market- (externally) oriented component, whereas conformance quality is an

operations- (internally) oriented component. Conformance quality is about doing things right, i.e. efficiency.

Design quality is about doing the right things, i.e. effectiveness.

2. Though improvement of both components requires close interfunctional collaboration, different

functions hold direct responsibility for them. Design quality is the direct responsibility of marketing, research

and development, and engineering functions. Conformance quality is the direct responsibility of the

production function.

3. Conformance quality is improved via reductions in the variation of processes and convergent

thinking; design quality is improved through increases in variation – focusing on various market segments,

5
tailoring products to unique requirements, developing new features and new products, etc. It is the result of

divergent thinking.

4. Conformance quality is easier to measure than design quality. It is a more tangible, objective and

quantifiable element of quality structure. Design quality deals with subjective phenomena such as

perceptions, expectations, and needs of customers that are in constant change. This subjective and changing

reference point makes the task of measuring design quality more difficult. Easier measurability means better

manageability. Not surprising, earlier versions of TQM developed by Crosby (1979), Deming (1986), Juran

(1988) and other quality gurus were mostly preoccupied with reduction in variation, defects, statistical

process control, etc.; that is they were oriented primarily towards conformance quality. Though customer

focus was vigorously declared, on an operational level most attention was paid to the improvement of

internal processes.

5. It is possible to evaluate conformance quality of a separate product as a match between its

particular attributes and specification. Contrastingly, design quality can be assessed only if a product is

considered an element of a certain consumption system. A product may be superb in itself, but if it does not

match other elements of a system, its design quality cannot be high. For example, big American appliances

do not match the size of a typical Japanese apartment and, therefore cannot be used in Japan. (Evans and

Lindsay, 2002, p. 12). When other elements of consumption system put constraints on utilization of a

product’s features, they at least partially become redundant, which leads to a reduction in design quality,

thereby also adding to difficulties in measurement of design quality.

6. The cause of the reduction in design quality is appearance of new needs and expectations, and

as a result, obsolescence of a product. The cause of the reduction in conformance quality of an existing

product is physical depreciation, which causes the attributes of a product to degrade.

So far I addressed both dimensions independently. Let us turn now to analyses of their

conflicting interaction.

6
 There is another aspect of conflict between design and conformance quality. Continuous improvement

of both elements is fed with organizational resources, which are in most occasions limited. Distribution of

resources that favors one component leaves the other with lesser amount of them. Necessity to improve

simultaneously both elements of quality puts strong competing pressures on organization and its

management. The conflict that is discussed here is a significant feature in organizational dynamics. It has to

be handled effectively, and researchers should provide practitioners with theoretical tools, which application

allows coping with it. The next part of the paper deals with these issues.

Managing conflict between design and conformance quality

Addressing contingency method I will focus consequently on the following variables: stages of

industry, product and organizational life cycle; generic competitive strategy; organizational technology;

international strategy; level of uncertainty.

Industry, product and organizational life cycle. The concept of life cycle as a sequence of stages is widely

used in organization theory and refers to different objects – industry, product, organization. Behavior of

organizations and even criteria for evaluation of their effectiveness vary with life cycle phases (Quinn,

Cameron, 1983). Quality management in general and management of design and conformance quality in

particular should reflect these differences.

Industry life cycle includes emerging, or embryonic stage, fast growth, shakeout, maturity, decline

and recovery. (Hill, Jones, 2004, p.55). Embryonic stage is characterized by high uncertainty regarding

product attributes that will prove decisive in winning buyers’ favor (Thompson, Strickland, 2003, p.260).

The buyers are first-time users who are unfamiliar with products, therefore the growth is slow. In such

conditions, organizations have to focus primarily on tuning product features to emerging customer needs,

hence, on quality of design.

In fast growth stage first-time demand is expanding rapidly as many new customers enter the market

(Hill, Jones, ibid). Industry products become more and more familiar and popular among customers. The fit

between customer needs and products’ attributes ceases to be a major problem, and importance of design
7
quality diminishes. On the other hand, the fast increase in production volume presents a challenge of

sustaining consistency in quality level. Expanding quantity of products puts strong pressure on reliability of

operations processes. Hence, in this stage conformance quality becomes paramount, and a company has to

switch its attention to this element. If it does not possess capability to keep variation of processes low while

using additional amounts of inputs, it undermines foundation of its initial success. In maturity and decline

stages it is not possible to define cut-and-dry priority between two quality components. Their relationship

depends largely on competitive strategy, which will be addressed shortly.

Speculations regarding industry life cycle with certain variation are applicable to product life cycle.

During the first phase of product introduction it is critical to find a market segment, which values a product

most. Quality of design has a definite preference over quality of conformance. At the second stage – growth

– it is crucial to produce products according to prescribed standards, so majority of efforts should be directed

towards conformance quality. The similar situation takes place in maturity and decline phases – reduction of

variation and consistency is the highest priority. Difference between growth stage and these later stages is

the level of difficulty – it is much easier to sustain and improve process capability to produce consistent

products when the volume of production remains stable.

As for organizational life cycle, again, the early start-up phase is characterized by dominant concern

for customer acceptance (Dodge, Fullerton and Robbins, 1994) that is design quality is mostly critical. In

growth stage demand for products exceeds supply, and design quality is not crucial for firm’s survival. A

company has to stabilize processes and reallocate resources towards conformance quality. Similar to industry

life cycle it is difficult to determine unequivocally the relative importance of two components in maturity

stage – it depends on company’s generic strategy. However, in decline/transition stage firms are especially

concerned with developing second-generation or completely new product (Kazajan, 1988). That implies

reallocation of efforts back to design quality.

Relative importance of design quality has an important implication on attention to customers as one

of stakeholders and strategy used by organization to deal with them. Approaches to stakeholders comprise

reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive strategy (Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Jawahar and
8
McLaughlin, 2001). Jawahar and McLaughlin, analyzing attention to stakeholders in different phases of

organizational life cycle maintain that in start-up stage, where customer acceptance is a major challenge,

proactive strategy towards them should be used. Proaction involves doing a great deal to address a

stockholder’s issues, including anticipating and actively coping with specific concerns or leading an industry

effort to do so (ibid, p.400). Later, when acceptance is assured, the attention towards customers may be

reduced to accommodation, which is a less active approach in dealing with stakeholders. Then, in

decline/transition phase customer issues can be again given proactive attention in an effort to build a new

market or rebuild market share (ibid, p.409). The higher the importance of design quality, the more active

approach towards customers should be used. Interesting to note, customer focus is acknowledged as one of

fundamentals of TQM (Bowen, 1994). However, this focus should not be perceived indiscriminatively. It

varies in different levels of organizational life cycle due to relative significance of design quality.

Organizational technology. The most suitable model for our discussion is the model of technical

complexity developed by Woodward (1965) who identified three types of production technology: small batch

and unit technology, large batch and mass production technology, and continuous process technology. An

organization that uses small batch and unit technology produces small amounts of goods to meet specific

needs of customers. This kind of technology is flexible and allows producing wide range of customized

products. Since the production is not standardized the conformance quality cannot play a significant role,

whereas design quality is paramount. In mass production large volumes of standardized products are

produced, which allows gaining economy of scale. An output has to be highly consistent, and, naturally,

organization should be focused primarily on conformance quality, while design quality plays subordinate

role. Similar situation takes place in continuous process technology – high volumes of production stress more

critical role of conformance quality than of design quality.

Generic competitive strategy. According to Porter (1985), a company’s competitive advantage may be built

upon differentiation, cost leadership and focus strategy. When organization pursues differentiation strategy, it

chooses to produce nonstandardized products with unique attributes that are valued by customers. Through

cost leadership strategy a company strives to achieve overall low cost by delivering no-frills, standardized,
9
commodity-like product. Focus strategy is derived from one of these options while serving particular market

segment. From definition of generic strategies a conclusion may be drawn that for a company with cost

leadership strategy quality plays limited role and is more pivotal for an organization that pursues

differentiation strategy. (Porter, ibid; Dean and Bowen, ibid). I argue that this conclusion can be misleading:

the real difference between two kinds of strategies refers to level of relative importance of quality of design

and quality of conformance.

Improvement of design quality takes place when new valuable attributes are incorporated into a

product. This process is aligned with differentiation strategy that pursues the ability to satisfy customers in a

unique way, that competitors are not able to copy. For successful differentiator a key to competitive

advantage is to attain higher design quality than contenders. Though conformance quality is important, it

plays limited role here. In contrast, when a company pursues cost leadership strategy, conformance quality

becomes more critical component. If it is low, an organization faces high level of failure and, consequently

overall quality costs, which, according to quality specialists, can count for 20-40% of sales (Evans, Lindsay,

ibid, p.469). A company successful in pursuing cost leadership strategy decreases quality costs to a minimal

level and on this foundation gains competitive advantage. Thus, quality issues are not less important for this

kind of strategy than for differentiation. The distinction lies in different priorities of two quality dimensions

rather than in importance of quality as a whole.

International strategy. Organizations that contend in global marketplace face two types of competing

pressures – pressures for cost reduction and pressures to be locally responsive (Hill, Jones, ibid, p.267).

These conflicting demands constitute a dilemma for a company – whether to customize products in order to

meet preferences of local buyers or to standardize products so as to achieve economy of scale, experience

curve effect and to reduce costs. Dealing with these opposite pressures, a company chooses between two

types of international strategy – multinational, or multidomestical, and global.

Companies pursuing multidomestic strategy decentralize strategic and operational decisions to the

strategic business unit in each country so as to allow that unit to tailor products to the local market (Harzing,
10
2000). Contrastingly, a global strategy is centralized approach, which assumes more standardization across

country markets. Referring to our discussion, the choice that an organization has to make is the choice

between two components of quality – whether to prioritize design quality or conformance quality on

international scale. Multidomestic strategy is oriented towards design quality, though global strategy is

focused primarily on conformance quality and downplays country-to-country variation. Consequently,

quality practices in companies that employ two international strategies have to differ so as to reflect different

priorities.

Level of uncertainty. The relationship between level of uncertainty and quality management has been

discussed for some time in the literature. Reed, Lemak and Montgomery (1996) argued that when

environmental uncertainty is high, a company should use a consumer, or market orientation. In contrast,

when environmental uncertainty is low, a firm has to use an operation orientation. Market orientation implies

emphasizing design quality, while operation orientation stresses conformance quality.

Somewhat different perspective was presented by Sitkin, Sutcliffe, and Shroeder (1994). They

discriminated between two forms of TQM – Total Quality Control (TQC) and Total Quality Learning (TQL)

that match low and high task uncertainty conditions respectively. TQC can be interpreted as both externally

and internally oriented. The first involves satisfying existing needs and clear expectations, the second – error

reduction via use of statistical tools. TQL, on the contrary, may be viewed as mostly externally oriented. It

entails seeking for new customer needs, cutting-edge innovations, high tolerance for errors etc. Authors show

that quality of conformance cannot play a significant role in high uncertainty situation. They exemplify this

point by computer industry where product life cycle is so short that that production techniques frequently

become outmoded before they had a chance to be debugged (ibid, p.544).

Jabnoun, Khalifah, and Yusuf (2003), invoking several contingency models regarding uncertainty

discriminated between three types of quality management. Quality Assurance (QA) fits low level of

uncertainty and involves internally oriented quality control. Its purpose is conformance of processes and

products to requirements and standards, and its structure is mechanistic. Total Quality Learning (TQL),

which concept was adopted from Sitkin et al. fits the highest level of uncertainty. It is externally focused and
11
characterized by organic structure. Total Quality Management is a middle ground between QA and TQL and

fits moderate level of uncertainty. It combines features of QA and TQL and is both externally oriented

towards customers’ satisfaction and internally oriented towards continuous improvement of processes. TQM

employs both mechanistic and organic mechanisms.

With all the variations among noted studies there is a common denominator: the higher the

uncertainty, the more external orientation is used, which means that quality of design becomes more

dominant relatively to quality of conformance. This conclusion is supported by previous discussion regarding

industry, product and organizational life cycles: in initial stages of these cycles where uncertainty is highest,

quality of design is a more pivotal dimension than quality of conformance.

Understanding different contingency factors is very beneficial in a sense that it helps to maneuver an

organization so as to adjust to external variables and strike the right balance between two dimensions of

quality. Ignoring contingencies while using one-best way paradigm can seriously impair effectiveness of

quality management. At the same time, contingency approach has its weaknesses. First, it establishes which

element of quality structure is more significant in particular situation, and as a result which one has to obtain

more resources and attention. In other words, it explains how the quality “pie” should be divided into two

parts. However, it does not determine what the size of the whole pie should be, and, respectively, how big are

both components of quality and resources allocated to them in absolute terms. If in organization X design

quality and conformance quality are on levels 10 and 8, whereas in organization Y they are on the level 5 and

4, then the ratio is the same but still, in the first company quality is twice as high as in the second. A

company can correctly define proportions between attention to design and conformance quality but be very

wrong in allocating resources to quality as a whole. Second, contingency paradigm is based on trade-off,

win-lose logic, that is one element has to be improved at the expense of the other.

These drawbacks may be overcome in large by using synergistic approach that replaces either/or

choices with both/and perspective. Synergistic approach involves managing of paradox, which explores

opposite and conflicting sides not as polarized but as interwoven and complementary. Paradoxical mindset

by no means diminishes or suppresses tension between opposites. It perceives them being engaged in
12
“coopetition” rather than in mere competition. Paradox management entails second-order thinking, which

critically examines entrenched assumptions to construct a more accommodating perception of opposites and

to capture its creative potential (Lewis, 2000). We can trace philosophical roots of coping with paradox in

dialectics of Friedrich Hegel, according to which struggle between two opposites – thesis and antithesis does

not lead to elimination of one of them but instead creates a third element – synthesis that encompasses

elements of both competitive sides.

Synergistic perspective in quality management was developed by Sutcliffe, Sitkin, and Browning

(2000) referring to reliability-focused control processes and learning-focused exploration processes.

Developing ideas of their previous article (Sitkin et al., ibid), they analyze three possible perspectives in

dealing with these contradicting processes: binary, or contingency model, which attunes use of either control

or exploration to situational uncertainty; orthogonal model that is based on slack resources and permits

engaging in both processes simultaneously and independently; and synergistic model for which greater

control and exploration are mutually reinforcing in that each process facilitates and contributes to the

effectiveness of the other. It is possible to adopt and accommodate the authors’ perspective to study

interrelatedness between design and conformance quality. Resources in most occasions are limited, so

orthogonal approach is more exception than a rule, which leave us primarily with contingency versus

synergistic dilemma.

How can organizations manage both quality of design and quality of conformance synergistically?

Their integration, or synthesis does not imply ignoring of contradiction between them. Reduction of variation

is an antithesis to increasing variation, convergent thinking is the opposite to convergent thinking,

improvement of internal processes is in tension with improvement of enhancement of products’ features due

to use of limited resources and so on. In order to create synthesis between conflicting sides we have to find

common denominator, or such interrelationships, which bring about their mutual enhancement. Further in the

paper a few areas (domains) of possible synergy between two quality components are pointed out.

1. Improvement of conformance quality reduces amount of errors and corresponding internal and

external failure costs. As a result an organization needs less resources and may exert less effort in running
13
routine reproductive processes. Higher efficiency allows reallocating resources towards searching for new

customer needs or new ways for satisfying existing needs, i.e. towards better design quality. For instance,

sound use of ISO-9000-related procedures and other control-oriented tools turns an organization into a well-

oiled machine in which day-to-day tasks are undertaken by employees without much pressure in a “work

smart, not hard” fashion. Saved time and energy can be used in improvement activities designed for better

adaptation to growing customers’ needs and expectations. That is how use of standard procedures

paradoxically enhances creativity in an organization. In turn, new levels of quality are quickly standardized

and become part of routine operations. In this manner two components of quality are integrated and mutually

reinforce each other.

2. Use of best practices in product design such as concurrent engineering may contribute to both

design and conformance quality. Concurrent engineering is based on frequent communication between

marketing, research and development, engineering, production and other functions in the process of product

design. Instead of implementing every step in isolation and then “throwing over the wall” its output, each

step quickly discloses information to other adjacent functions and gets immediate feedback. Concurrent

engineering essentially alters sequential task interdependence into reciprocal task interdependence.

Overlapping of subsequent phases compresses development cycle, which results in quicker response to new

customer needs. In this way an organization improves quality of design. At the same time use of intensive

two-way communication prevents misunderstanding between functions, simplifies design and improves

manufacturability of a new product. Better manufacturability involves smoother set-up, lower levels of errors

and defects, i.e. higher level of conformance to specification.

3. Quality management programs strive to develop culture of total participation and teamwork. When

such a culture is genuinely adopted, employees are encouraged to carry out activities beyond their routine

professional tasks. They participate in various kinds of improvement teams and move from one improvement

project to another. One team can be focused on reduction of errors in the process still another can work on

upgrading product or service features. Though two kinds of improvement are different, there is no iron

curtain between them. Creative ideas are not bounded to one of them and isolated from each other. Intensive
14
exchange of information and knowledge sharing boost creative spirit among heterogeneous improvement

teams. Continuous training and education contributes to both kinds of improvement activities altogether.

Through such training employees can acquire skills in using analytical tools that can be applied both in

improvement of design and conformance quality, such as seven steps in solving problem, conflict

management, analysis of variance etc. Sound management of both aspects of continuous improvement allows

for their mutual reinforcement and achievement of synergistic effect.

4. As it was mentioned earlier, mass production is associated with conformance quality orientation,

whereas small-batch production is associated with design quality orientation. Modern organizations while

using advanced computerized technology combine both approaches into mass customization. They possess

capability to produce in large amounts and at the same time to tailor products to special customer needs.

Through mass customization organizations can pursue both differentiation and cost leadership strategy

simultaneously. Mass customization can be successful only on condition that both dimensions of quality are

high. An organization should be focused both on design quality and conformance quality. There is no room

for cut-and-dry priority in this situation.

On global scale similar logic lies behind transnational strategy, which unifies multinational and

global strategy (Barlett and Ghoshal, 1989). Pursuing transnational strategy an organization responds to both

local pressures for product customization and pressures for cross-country standardization and coordination.

Necessity for high level of both components of quality makes synergistic effect sine qua non of this

approach.

Table 1. Contingency factors determining relative importance of quality dimensions

Quality Quality of Quality of

dimensions design conformance
Contingency
factors
Industry life cycle Emerging Fast growth
15
 Product life cycle Introduction Growth, maturity,
Decline

Organizational life cycle Start-up, Growth

Decline/transition
Attention to customers Proactive Accommodative

Technology Small-batch and Mass production,

unit Continuous process
Competitive strategy Differentiation Cost leadership

International strategy Multidomestic Global

Uncertainty High Low

Drawbacks of contingency approach bring about need for synergistic approach that was presented in

the last part of an article. Question that remains unanswered (Bill?) is whether these two approaches are

antithetical, i.e. does the use of one of them preclude the use of the other? This conclusion can be drawn from

discussion by Sutcliffe et al. (ibid.) who maintain that conditions for use of binary, orthogonal, and

synergistic models are different and applying of inappropriate approach leads to performance decline. The

authors provide examples for both successes and failures in use of every model. If this perspective is correct

then as a next step in research we need to find out what are the situational attributes suitable for employment

of every method. Examples are helpful but not sufficient; they have to be supplemented by principles

distinguishing one external condition from another. Putting it paradoxically, sort of contingency approach

should be used in using contingency approach. One proposition is that contingency method is mostly useful

in clear-cut situations, where one side of a paradox dominates over the other. For instance, when uncertainty

is high, quality of design should be prioritized. Contingency approach probably does not help much in

middle ground, “gray” situations where there are strong pressures from both sides of paradox, and defining

priorities between two quality dimensions is not straightforward.

16
 Still another possibility exists that at least in some situations both contingency and synergistic

perspectives are complementary and may be used in combination in the same setting. Discussion on

relationship between contingency and synergistic perspectives can be very valuable referring not only to

quality management but to other organizational issues as well. Such a discussion, however, is beyond the

scope of this paper and should be subject of future research.

17