I.

HYPOTHESIS As American industry becomes increasingly more concerned about quality as a competitive advantage, the question of defining a term as inherently subjective as quality becomes more and more contentious. Many managers operate on the "I know it when I see it" principle; however, a growing awareness exists that in order to have a quality product or service or company, there must be some consensus on what quality is. Since the early 1980's, a not-so-quiet revolution has been occurring in American business, a revolution of ideas about doing business which has largely (but not exclusively) been spearheaded by three individuals: Phillip Crosby, W. Edwards Deming, and Joseph Juran. While many people are of the opinion that the ideas of these three men may differ, it is the purpose of this paper to show that Crosby, Deming, and Juran all define quality in the same terms, albeit from different perspectives: the user, the manufacturer, and the manager. II. SUPPORTING DATA THE USERS PERSPECTIVE: DEMING The problem of defining quality is so important to Deming that he devotes an entire chapter of his landmark book, Out of the Crisis, to doing just that. In Demings view, the consumer is by necessity the most important part of the production system: without a consumer, there is no reason to produce. The question then becomes one of what the consumer needs (or what the consumer thinks he needs or wants). The consumer is not, as Deming points out, always the one who pays the final bill: one or more middlemen may exist between the producer and the person actually paying for the product or service. the consumer is simply the end user of whatever product or service is being supplied. Deming cites one important example of where this distinction is frequently lost in an anecdote regarding the review of elementary school readers produced by a publishing house. When one of the reviewers protested that the stories were horribly bland and uninteresting, the company vice-president in charge of textbooks responded that, although he agreed, he was obliged to keep in mind that neither teachers nor students at that level bought textbooks. The sale had to be made to school boards and superintendents. Likewise, Deming also remarks that assessing the quality of medical care offered by a practitioner or institution is similarly difficult: because insurance companies rather than patients spend the majority of the money spent on health care, and because many medical professionals and institutions see research rather than patient care as their ultimate purpose, the priorities of many practitioners have become skewed.
2 3 4 5

To Deming, the only meaningful definition of quality is that which the consumer specifies. A product could meet every possible technical specification and be offered at an appropriate price, but if it is the wrong product, it is worthless to the consumer.

However, Deming also argues that quality has a short-term and a long-term component. It is important to anticipate the consumers future needs as well as those of the present in order to continue to meet the consumers definition of quality and maintain a competitive advantage. It is at this point that Deming introduces his Continuous Improvement Helix, an outgrowth of the famous Deming Cycle (Plan, Do, Study/Check, and Act) :
6

1. Design the product. 2. Make it; test it in the production line and the laboratory. 3. Put it on the market 4. Test it in service; find out what the user thinks of it, and why the nonuser has not bought it. According to Deming, these four steps, repeated continuously, will result in increasing quality at a decreasing price. Thus, the conditions for quality as seen by the consumer are met: a knowledge of what the consumer needs at the present time, the ability to meet that need, and the ability to anticipate the future needs of the consumer. THE MANUFACTURERS PERSPECTIVE: JURAN Like Deming, Juran also sees quality as a concept which can only be usefully defined by the consumer. Strictly put, Juran defines quality as "fitness for use." Under this heading, Juran goes on further to quantify "fitness for use" in two different categories:
7

1. Product features that meet customer needs 2. Freedom from deficiencies To achieve the first objective, Juran, like Deming, proposes that the producer learn what the customer expects from the product. In many cases, this also includes determining who the end customer really is. At this point, the task is to translate the customer demands into the desired production specifications and features, and come up with a coherent plan to produce them.
8

The second objective is achieved through measuring the results of production and how well-received the product is in the marketplace. By comparing the actual results with the desired results, acting on deficiencies and providing feedback into the system, continuous improvement can be attained. These three activities - quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement - are known as the Juran Trilogy.
9

Like the Deming Cycle, the Juran Trilogy is intended to be seen as an endless feedback loop, although Juran takes the concept further and explores the practicalities of implementing such a system for any given operation, be it service or manufacturing-related. Whereas Deming sees quality problems as a result of poor understanding of an existing system, Juran is of the opinion that proper planning of a system in the beginning can help the producer avoid unnecessary rework and hidden quality costs.
10

Juran sees the problem as being essentially that of strategy vs. tactics: quality strategy (the "Big Q" as Juran puts it) being the outlook of senior management and the organization as a whole, and quality tactics (the "Little Q") being the day-to-day operations of line workers and supervisors who are mainly concerned with individual tasks. In Jurans view, too much emphasis in the quality disciplines has been placed on the "Little Q" at the expense of the "Big Q". Like Deming, Juran proposes a paradigm shift to reconcile this disparity; however, Juran also contends that the shift is already taking place and can be accomplished within traditional management structures.
11

III. CONCLUSION While all three major quality leaders have their own ideas on how quality should be measured and managed, it is clear that Deming, Juran, and Crosby all point in the same direction. Demings assertion that the customer be the one who determines whether or not quality exists in a product or service, Jurans bipartite definition of quality, and Crosbys tacit "conformance to requirements" definition all insist on the customer being the final arbiter of what quality is or is not with respect to a particular product or service. All three insist on there being some tangible definition of quality, though with varying degrees of rigor. And all three see the importance of feedback in any mechanism designed to measure and manage quality: Demings Continuous Improvement Helix, the Juran Trilogy, and Crosbys Price of Non-Conformance are all feedback mechanisms designed to answer one question: is the product performing in the marketplace as expected? If not, why not? The difference, as stated before, lies mainly in perspective. Demings perspective is customer-driven and relies heavily on market research to determine what the customer will define as a quality product or service. Jurans, while not independent of the marketplace, is more engineering-driven, designed to translate the customers vision of quality into that which can be produced. Crosbys perspective transcends both of these, taking the high-road view of management: how one achieves quality is less important at the upper management level than whether or not the goals of quality are being met, and at what cost.

To conclude, while one might at first glance think that Deming, Juran, and Crosby have different approaches to the management of quality, in the final analysis all three insist on the same basic principles. As Crosby aptly pointed out, the main difference lies in the perspective one takes. While an inherently subjective term such as quality can easily take on a multitude of definitions, it is clear that these three leaders of the quality movement are pointing in the same direction.