Juran’s and Crosby’s Quality Management Theories – 553 Words | Assessment Example

Project management and quality management are two crucial aspects of the work of many organizations worldwide. There are many people, who are involved in the development of high-quality projects with different aims and outcomes. Still, in the majority of projects, quality remains to be the top goal connected with personal and organizational passion and pride (Sallis 1). Crosby and Juran are two powerful gurus, who offered their theories and philosophies to develop a universal definition of quality and justify their decisions from different perspectives (Brincat 19). There are certain similarities and differences in Juran’s and Crosby’s thoughts, and some of them will be discussed in this paper, not to clarify their strengths and weaknesses but to investigate different approaches to understanding quality as a crucial concept in management.

Juran’s philosophy is focused on the role of people in quality management and the necessity to educate and train managers to avoid or minimize the risks of human relations problems and changes. Juran developed the quality theory based on three processes, including planning, control, and improvement. Crosby’s philosophy is based on the principle to do things right the first time rather than try to change them at a later stage (Brincat 25). His theory is based on four absolutes, including quality, prevention, zero defects, and measurement.

Both gurus believe that quality has to be based on strong management commitment because it helps to save organizational money and promote the development and constant improvement of companies. Besides, Juran and Crosby support the importance of customers and the necessity to promote cultural shifts in case they may influence the quality of services and work. Though Juran and Crosby focus on different methods of work, they try to achieve the same goal that is continuous improvement and meeting of customers’ needs and expectations.

In addition to certain similarities in both gurus’ works, it is necessary to clarify the differences that make people choose between their approaches. For example, Juran tries to divide an organization into different parts and implement processes separately to underline the uniqueness of each department and the role of each employee. If a company chooses the ideas by Juran, its people should be ready to focus on a process and development because these two decisions promote improvement and success. In his turn, Crosby supports a team-building approach that should be holistic by its nature. In other words, all departments and people have to undergo the same changes and improvements. Besides, Crosby aims at motivating workers to improve quality and avoiding defects at the initial stages of the work. Juran does not pay much attention to the possible defects and mistakes but underlines the role of each worker in a company. Crosby tries to motivate, and Juran tries to make people do something at once (Alenezi et al. 35).

Neither the approach developed by Juran nor the ideas introduced by Crosby can be defined as perfect for all companies. Still, their power lies in the demonstration of the importance of quality in any kind of work. Quality is the result of the work that is based on the success of motivation and numerous processes. Juran’s and Crosby’s theories maybe not perfect in case they are used separately. However, in case both philosophies are used at once, organizational success, high-quality performance, and job satisfaction could be achieved.

Works Cited

Alenezi, Hussain, Ali Tarhini, and Ra’ed Masa’deh. “Investigating the Strategic Relationship between Information Quality and E-Government Benefits: A Literature Review.” International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 9, no. 1, 2015, pp. 33-50.

Brincat, Edward. Quality Management in Micro Firms – Myth or Reality? A Maltese Micro Manufacturing Firm Under Review. Anchor Academic Publishing, 2014.

Sallis, Edward. Total Quality Management in Education. Routledge, 2014.