Quality Uncertainty and Quality Perception

  • Lalit Wankhade
  • Balaji Dabade
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


This chapter links quality perception to quality uncertainty. The extent of information asymmetry or symmetry has been used as the basis for this linkage. Quality uncertainty or perception is viewed from both endogenous and exogenous perspectives. Total Quality Management makes the endogenous side with TQM constructs as endogenous variables, whereas marketing science framework exhibits the exogenous side. Principles of economics of information are implemented to correlate marketing parameters with the TQM practices in industry so that quality is perceived by customers. Quality perception is an outcome of combined probability of information symmetry and TQM. Theories of probability and reliability engineering are used for mathematical modeling and analysis. Fault tree and success tree method is specifically applied to analyze quality uncertainty and quality perception at the market end. Quality uncertainty and perception behaviors are also related to product life cycle. Thus, a new direction has been given to the perceived quality that traversed thus far in different streams.


Information Asymmetry System Reliability Product Life Cycle Quality Perception Fault Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahire S, Golhar D, Waller M (1996) Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decis Sci 27(1):23–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black S, Porter L (1996) Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decis Sci 27(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter D, Baker B (1992) Concurrent engineering: the product developing environment for the 1990’s. Addison–Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Flynn B, Schoeder R, Sakibaba S (1994) A framework for quality management research and associated measurement instrument. J Oper Manage 11:339–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Motwani J (2001) Critical factors and performance measures of TQM. TQM Mag 13(4):292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Powell TC (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strateg Manage Study 16:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Saraph J, Benson P, Schroeder R (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decis Sci 20:810–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tarı´ JJ (2005) Components of successful total quality management. TQM Mag 17(2):182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Zeitz G, Johannesson R, Ritchie JE Jr (1997) An employee survey measuring total quality management practices and culture. Group Organ Manage 22(4):414–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SGGS Institute of Engineering & Technology Dept. Production EngineeringNandedIndia

Personalised recommendations