1. Management issues
Education, Training & Research
Blinded by
quality
In his latest article on management issues, Michael
Cassop-Thompson asks: ‘Is it time to stop
trying to improve on quality?’
investment in quality. In the current resource climate,
attempts to improve quality may lack relevance and
appropriateness for many leisure services.
Maintenance or improvement?
I
mproving upon quality has long been seen as the
holy grail of the service industry but I believe
that quality improvement is not an unquestioned
paradigm. It is contingent upon money and
resources being available to deliver it vis-a-vis
other competing service priorities. It is also
dependent upon an organisation’s strategic
objectives and whether quality improvement is
currently a viable option for many leisure services.
This article suggests that discourses urging quality
improvement for cash-strapped local authorities
leisure services may be ill-advised. They potentially
quality
improvement is not
an unquestioned
paradigm
divert attention away from more pressing issues
such as employee morale, effective leadership, and
innovative efficiency savings. While it is recognised
that quality is one means of creating value for
customers (Ruiz et al 2008), the current view of
this idea is becoming a management distraction.
A recurring theme of industry literature and
advertising is that as budgets become tighter and
resources more scarce, then quality must be improved
to allow organisations to offer customer value.
While improvements in quality is a worthy aim,
the strategic choice does not have to be continual
42« October 2011 Sport& activity
physical
About the author:
About the author:
Michael CassopThompson, FIMSPA,
is an IMSPA assessortrainer and director of
Cassop-Thompson Ltd
Over the last two decades the emphasis has been
on the benefits of successfully managing quality.
Claims made for quality services include: gaining a
competitive edge; retention of customers; bottom
line gains; and fostering positive customer reactions
to the service. (Athanasopoulou 2008; Ladhari 2009;
Durvasula et al, 2011; Anderson et al, 2008; Walter
et al, 2010; Sanchez-Fernandes et al, 2009). There
is no dissent here that quality was, and remains, a
key issue. What is proposed, however, is that quality
improvement is but only one choice, and an acceptable
alternative is to simply maintain quality.
Questions may be asked concerning the relevance
of quality as a central concept of service provision
(Gummerus, 2011). For example, quality is stated as
being only a contributory factor to satisfaction and
value, and therefore concentration upon this limited
concept may be providing only marginal gains (Ruiz
et al, 2008). It is suggested that the creation and
maintenance of value for customers – which is a
broader-based notion than quality – may offer a more
fruitful avenue for management efforts (Heinenon et
al, 2010). The American Marketing Association reflect
this change with its amended marketing definition.
This has moved from a satisfaction-focus to a valuefocus (Gronroos, 2008).
The notion of putting quality as the focus service
provision is not disputed, if it is necessary. Clearly,
if an organisation is competing to win business
based upon the quality of service, then this is part
of its strategy. However, how many local authorities
need quality to be improved year in, year out? Is the
emphasis being placed upon the notion that quality
is something that has to be improved as the nexus of
service provision really an issue?
This article does appear timely. As service provision
is reduced, and resources creak under increasing
www.imspa.co.uk

2. Xyxyxyxyxyx
pressure, why would one have a concern for improving
quality if it was not required. Surely, quality should
be – where appropriate – maintained. Choosing to
maintain rather than improve is not the converse
of good management – it is good management.
Subsequently, time wasted navel-gazing over how to
improve quality can be saved.
If one strips back management to some basic
fundamentals, most would accept that leisure services
need to provide value for the customer. That being
the case, management can then make decisions
accordingly. These decisions do not need to adopt
a ‘we need more quality’ approach. Some providers
already have more than enough quality to meet the
purchasing criteria of their customers. Attempting
to provide more is only going to result in everdiminishing returns.
Leisure management is a broad field and one size
does not fit all. The level of quality required for the
service needs to be made according to the objectives
of the organisation. Clearly, a high-end health club
may have strategic objectives that depend upon high
levels of quality to differentiate themselves from
their competition (Porter, 1985). Unfortunately, the
urge to improve quality does not always fit current
local authority provision. In addition, with reducing
budgets, this does not sit snugly with the potential
financing and/or the resources required to improve
quality. Despite the claims of Crosby (1979), quality,
particularly high quality, is not actually free.
In leisure, if care is not exercised, the continual
references to improve quality become little more than
rhetoric. It also distracts management from other key
issues, such as increasing customer value through
alternative means. Perhaps, for some, it is time to
maintain quality rather than improve it.
Trade-offs
Some basic management concerns relating to – among
others – costs, quality, resources, availability and
scope of the service
inevitably involve
trade-offs (Pinto,
2010).
However,
when
quality is discussed
it appears, in
some quarters, that
consideration of this
trade-off is suspended
because quality
improvement is
the unquestioned
paradigm. This
becomes even
more striking when
finance and resources are
dwindling.
Leisure services do have choice in
the level of quality provided and it is justifiable to
maintain rather than improve quality. Aggregated
www.imspa.co.uk
value for customers can be achieved via acceptable
quality, with an emphasis placed upon other valuegenerating components to provide a service of worth
for customers (Woodhall, 2003) Therefore, the
decision to maintain, rather than improve, quality
appears to be a prudent choice. That being the case,
the discourse urging leisure services to strive to
improve quality appears redundant and misguided
(unless they have a quality deficiency or they are
competing on quality).
Improving quality is always a worthy aim and
those who have brought quality to the forefront
t is suggested that the
creation and maintenance
of value for customers may
offer a more fruitful avenue
of management thinking should be congratulated.
However, there may be a need for some re-direction.
Quality is still a key issue, but the focus in some
cases should be on maintenance not improvement.
One must also keep firmly in mind that today’s
acceptable quality may become tomorrow’s
unacceptable quality. Therefore, quality may have to
be consciously increased in the future. However, this
is a different issue to focusing upon improvement for
improvements sake. The industry should be focused
upon maintaining quality where appropriate, while
reducing costs, or providing attractive offerings
by some alternative means. This puts the focus
not on improving quality, where gains made
may be of little tangible significance, but on
the contemporary issues of how value can be
provided within the resources available.
Sport & activity October 2011 »43
physical