iSixSigma

Service Quality

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #159869

    Service Quality
    Member

    Sharif,
    If you are doing “research”, at a minimum do not confuse “Service Quality” with methodologies such as Lean or Six Sigma. Service quality is a concept developed in marketing in the 1980s (there are four different schools of thought) that are now being discussed as service marketing, relationship marketing or value marketing. Lean, Six Sigma, TOC and TQM come out of the operations management world and are structured approaches to process improvements. When it comes to the “3rd” wold, there are now specialized conferences in the Middel East (the second of these conference just took place in Dubai) and any operations management department in India will be able to get you plenty of information. Other than that Mike Carnell is probably your best contact on this site. The European site may also be a good starting point as many firms, particularly in the South of Europe, work closely with the Middle East, and Britain due to its history with the Far East.

    0
    #152273

    Service Quality
    Member

    Manjit,
    The Japanese is probably internally rolling around about all the heavy-duty “Western” rational thinking about something that is quite intuitive and in his world doesn’t need a lot of semantic explanations, explications, implications and non-referential discursive thinking … Not sure what you mean by POM, but I have spent quite some time in the countries that invented the “conditions of the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori” and the “non-referential signifiers”. So from the angles of some of the 191 insignificant non-American countries in this world the American scholastic debates about the differences between lean and lean six sigma sound quite amusing. Especially, when these debates are driven by powerpoint slides that some consultants put together (sometimes over a couple of cold beers late at night:-). Have a great day … and say hi to your Japanese friend!

    0
    #152267

    Service Quality
    Member

    Ex-SME, your question is a type three type of error: it’s the wrong question. It is totally irrelevant today who “fathered the child”. The key question is “Where is this child going” and “How will it survive and grow to the next level”. Obsession with history, unless used to bring about current change, has always been a sign of decline be it in an empire, nation-state or a once burstling with life type of initiative such as “Six Sigma”. Old people squabble about a father’s child because they want to profit from the inheritance. But inheritances (= low risk, low annuities) are different from entrepreneurial investment (high-risk, high yield) capital venture …

    0
    #152266

    Service Quality
    Member

    Manjit, You are really dealing with three issues:
    1. Product quality: This is where the “classical” defect definition comes from which are derived from customer driven engineering specifications and a pass/fail of the requirements. The costs associated with these defects are the cost of quality indicatores developed by Juran.
    2. Process throughput: This is where the “classical” waste (muda) definitions come from. In this context, a defect is a waste to the degree it requires rework in the process.
    3. Service Quality: These are “defects” related to the service aspects of the product (you order a book at amazon.com: the book itself is in great shape, but you paid for next day delivery and receive the book in four days). Within the service quality framework of for example Zeithaml, Barry and others, delays would fall under the umbrella of “reliability”. The service quality model assumes five types of service failures: tangibles, reliaibility, emphathy, assurance and individual caring attention. However, in the service quality type of framework, defects are not as statically defined as in the production world, because there are compensating factors, most importantly service recovery. Thus, ironically, in a service type of environment a “defect” when it is dealt with appropriately can actually lead to higher satisfaction, which is the goal of the quality movement no matter if it is service or product related.
    My observation is that in the current quest (craze?) for differentiating between lean and lean six sigma, which is really an American distinction that the Japanese never made (it was always lean and kaizen … I posted that in a previous post), Americans have forgotten one of its own key contributions to the idea of “quality”, i.e. the extension of product related quality, optimal production processes and the service aspect of product production and marketing. In my opinion, it is time to tie the differentiation of defect/non-defect back to its original idea, i.e. improved satisfaction and its link to profitability through variables such as loyalty, retention, improved share of wallet etc.
    In my opinion, six sigma and lean six sigma is currently stagnating because it has become involved in an internal struggle between “heretic” schools of thought (TQM, Six Sigma, Lean, Lean Six Sigma etc.) that has lost sight of the fact that in the end, the initiative needs to be tied to the value creation process of a company. There has been an earth shift over the past ten years in the business world and the business literature that Six Sigma is hopefully going to wake up to soon, before it becomes one of those “initiatives” from yesteryear.

    0
    #152248

    Service Quality
    Member

    GrayR, a refreshingly unideological post, that is supported by well-informed experience with the subject-matter.
    The real issue that needs to be addressed by (hopefully) the next generation of six sigma (or its replacement) is the question of how to define and deal with defects when process input, throughput and process output are not separated, i.e. in services settings. In the transactional world we continue to see the ideological divides between proponents of Shainin, Taguchi, Deming and Harry which are all good and well in tangible product settings. However, this ideological discussion misses out on the insights from marketing oriented efforts (service quality, loyalty, marketing relationship theory etc.) that have also gained interesting insights into how to deal with the measurement and impact of service failures as opposed to product failures. I find it interesting that quality had very dynamic discussions up to the beginning of the 1990s, and has since then ossified into groups of opposing schools that literally have missed out on the fact that the world has moved on. Anyway, I enjoyed your post.

    0
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)