The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
23,2
162
Received May 2004
Revised October 2004
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 23 No. 2, 2006
pp. 162-178
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656710610640934
Quality for the individual and for
the company in the
business-to-business market
Concepts and empirical findings on trade-offs
Jukka Ojasalo
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this article is to increase knowledge of the nature of quality in the
business-to-business market by focusing on the individual and company level aspects of quality. This
is relevant because the distinction between individual and company levels in the context of quality has
received very little attention in the literature. Also, there is little knowledge of the processes that can
lead to quality trade-off situations between organizational and individual goals.
Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on empirical qualitative study on quality in
business-to-business professional services.
Findings – This article introduces the concepts of quality for the individual and for the company in
the business-to-business market. It also contributes by explaining and analyzing processes increasing
the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the individual and quality for the company.
Research limitations/implications – The present study is characterized by the general
limitations: lack of statistical reliability and validity; can be used to generate hypotheses but not to
test them; and generalizations cannot be made. The following avenues for further research can be
suggested. The role of rational and emotional elements should be examined in more detail. The
overtime development of quality for the individual and for the company during a long-term
relationship would be an interesting topic for an in-depth research. Dimensions of quality for the
individual and for the company and their priorities may vary in different cultures; a cross-cultural
survey would be required to shed light on this issue.
Practical implications – The managerial implications of the present study are also discussed
including several practical examples of aspects and challenges related to quality for the individual and
for the company.
Originality/value – The findings and concepts introduced in this article contribute to the literature
because the distinction between individual and company levels in the context of quality has received
very little attention in the earlier research. Also, there is little empirical knowledge of the processes
that can lead to quality trade-off situations between organizational and individual goals.
Keywords Quality, Business-to-business marketing, Professional services
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The literature includes a variety of definitions for “quality.” According to Reeves and
Bednar (1994), no universal definition of quality exists; rather, different definitions are
appropriate under different circumstances. These multiple definitions are needed to
capture the complexity of the of the quality construct and in order for firms to address
quality issues that change as products move through various stages, from design,
through production to the market (Garvin, 1984; Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002). Reeves
and Bednar (1994) concluded that no universal definition of quality can be found. Findings on
However, quality has often been defined as value (Feigenbaum, 1951; Abbott, 1955), trade-offs
conformance to specifications (Levitt, 1972; Gilmore, 1974), meeting or exceeding
customer expectations (Grönroos, 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1985), and fitness for use
(Juran et al., 1974). When quality is defined as value, then price is also included in the
product/services attributes that are evaluated by customers when purchasing and
consuming the good/service. In other words, value is a function of results achieved for 163
customers and costs to the customers (Heskett et al., 1994). When quality is understood as
conformance to specifications then objective and measurable standards are established by
the product engineers or service designers for the product/services performance and
fitness for use. Quality is also understood as meeting or exceeding customer expectations.
Meeting or exceeding expectations results in satisfaction. This definition has been
frequently used in the service quality literature. When quality is understood as fitness for
use, it refers to the extent to which a product successfully serves the purpose of the user.
Juran et al. (1962) identified the following eight primary uses for the term “quality”
in industry:
(1) Market place quality: the degree to which a specific product satisfies the wants
of a specific consumer.
(2) Quality of design: the degree to which a class of products possesses potential
satisfaction for people generally.
(3) Quality of conformance: the degree to which a specific product conforms to a
design or specification.
(4) Consumer preference: the degree to which a specific product is preferred over
competing products of equivalent grade, based on comparative tests of
consumers.
(5) Quality characteristic: a distinguishing feature of a grade or product (i.e.
appearance, performance, reliability, durability, etc.).
(6) A vague expression of general excellence but without being specific enough to
be classified.
(7) The name of a function or responsibility in industry, related to achievement of
quality of product.
(8) The name of a specific department in a company.

Garvin (1984, 1987), offered a framework for understanding product quality. The
framework is based on eight classic dimensions:
(1) Performance. The primary operating characteristics of a product.
(2) Features. The secondary characteristics of a product that supplement its basic
functioning.
(3) Reliability. The product’s probability of failure-free performance over a specific
period of time.
(4) Conformance. The degree to which a product’s physical and performance
characteristics meet design specifications.
(5) Durability. A measure of useful product life, i.e. the amount of use a customer
gets from a product before it deteriorates or must be replaced.
IJQRM (6) Serviceability. The ease, speed, courtesy, and competence of repair.
23,2 (7) Aesthetics. How the product looks, feels, sounds, tastes or smells, a matter of
personal preferences.
(8) Perceived. Quality based on image, brand name, or advertising rather than
product attributes, and is subjectively assessed.
164 According to Garvin (1984, p. 33), these dimensions include product-, user- and
manufacturing-based approaches to quality. The product-based approach focuses on
performance, features, and durability; the user-based approach focuses on aesthetics
and perceived quality; and the manufacturing-based approach focuses on conformance
and reliability.
Kano et al. (1984), introduced the Kano model that categorizes the attributes of
product or service based on how well they are able to satisfy customers’ needs. Basic
attributes are those requirements which often go unnoticed by most customers, since
they expect these requirements to be met in the product or service, but their absence is
very dissatisfying. Basic requirements are called as must-be- or expected attributes.
They are also characterized as “taken for grated quality”, even though they should not
be taken for granted and regarded as easy to satisfy. Performance factors are usually in
existence already, but they are neutral, causing neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction.
Attractive attributes are beyond customers’ expectations, and they refer to “surprising
quality”. Their absence does not make the customer dissatisfied, but their presence
excites customers.
The conceptualization of the quality in different companies and industries is also
affected, for example, by the attitude towards possessing a quality certificate and the
dominance of front-room/back-room activity (Dick et al., 2001). Firms that do not
consider ISO 9000 important have quality emphasis that reflect their process structure.
Companies in industries where a minority of the stuff have direct customer contact
emphasize internal quality (conformance quality) over external quality (interactive
quality). In contrast, companies in industries that have a majority of the staff with
direct customer contact emphasize more external quality measures (interactive quality)
in their quality definitions. Companies which rate the possession of ISO 9000 as
important, emphasize both internal (conformance) and external (interactive) quality
dimensions in a balanced way.
Indeed, the quality concept has been understood in various ways. In this study,
“customer perceived quality”-view is the starting point for the attempt to increase
understanding of the nature of quality in the business-to-business market. This
approach has been popular particularly in the service literature (Grönroos, 1983;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). Based on the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy (PIMS)
program database, Buzzel and Gale (1987, p. 111) say that “Quality is whatever the
customer say it is, and the quality of a particular product or service is whatever the
customer perceives it to be”. Similarly, according to Grönroos (1990, p. 37), “it should be
remembered that what accounts is quality as it is perceived by the customers”. In line
with this, Zeithaml et al. (1990) argue that only customers judge quality; all other
judgments are essentially irrelevant.
But how about when the customer is an organization? Then, what is “customer
perceived quality”? Who is/are the “customers”? Outside of the quality literature, for
example, industrial marketing and organizational buying behavior have distinguished
individual and company levels in their models and theories (e.g. Webster and Wind, Findings on
1972; Sheth, 1973; Håkansson and Wootz, 1975; Choffray and Lilien, 1978; Ojasalo, trade-offs
2001a). These levels have also been used to describe several phenomena in customer
relationships. The literature suggests that trust, for instance, can have a different
nature at individual and corporate levels (Wilson and Mummalaneni, 1988; Miettilä
and Möller, 1990; Holmlund, 1997; Ojasalo and Puhakainen, 2003). Similarly, it has
been found that commitment can be different at individual and company levels 165
(Strandvik and Liljander, 1994; Ojasalo, 2002a). Also, the business network research
pays attention to both individual and organizational actors (Ojasalo, 2004). Time
horizon of customer benefits, accumulation of customer satisfaction, and expectations
management have individual and organizational aspects in the business-to-business
market (Ojasalo, 2000, 2001b, 2002b, c). The current study broadens the perspective by
approaching quality at both levels in the business-to-business market.
Quality research, in general, has paid little attention to individual and
organizational level aspects of quality in the business-to-business market. There is
an evident need to increase knowledge in this respect. In his research agenda for
business-to-business services, Parasuraman (1998, p. 314) proposed that more research
is required related to nature and measurement of quality in the business-to-business
market where customer service “represents the quality of the entire fabric of
interwoven business strands linking the selling and buying firm”. The concepts and
findings of this study response to this need. They extend understanding of what
quality means when the buyer is an organization. In this respect, the relevance of
understanding how quality relates to the wellbeing of individuals and to organizational
goals is established, and the corresponding quality concepts are developed.
The developed concepts of quality for the individual and for the company make it
possible to explore factors and processes affecting the likelihood of quality trade-offs.
The earlier research has hardly touched on this issue and there is a clear knowledge
gap. This study increases our knowledge in this respect in the following way. Two
different processes affecting the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the
individual and for the company are identified. It was found that, on the one hand, the
aging of a relationship increases the likelihood of this kind of quality trade-off, and on
the other hand, that growth in the selling company’s customer base decreases such a
likelihood.
The paper first reviews the literature dealing with quality in business-to-business
market. Next, it describes the present empirical methodology. It then conceptualizes
quality for the individual and for the company. Next, it describes processes increasing
the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the individual and for the company.
After that, it discusses the managerial implications. Then, it draws the final
conclusions.

Quality in the business-to-business market

A look at the literature reveals how little empirical knowledge or concepts exist, which
would explicitly distinguish between the individual and company level aspects of
quality in the business-to-business market. Many of the aspects of quality in the
business-to-business market, suggested in the literature, are also overlapping. Table I
summarizes various aspects brought forward in the literature dealing with quality in
the business-to-business market.
IJQRM
Author Aspects of quality in the business-to-business market
23,2
Szmigin (1993) Hard quality: technical quality, can often be assessed in an objective
manner
Soft quality: functional quality, is perceived in subjective ways
Outcome quality: overall customer satisfaction with the relationship
166 Halinen (1996) Final effects on the client company’s business
Price, cost, and value
Processual nature of service performance
Lapierre (1997) Value exchange: technical quality, functional quality, relational variables,
image
Value in use: financial, social, operational, strategic
Holmlund (1997) Technical dimension
Social dimension
Economic dimension
Marshall et al. (1998) Respectful treatment
Delivering value
Problem solving
Effective order processing
Conscientiousness
Vendor management
Eriksson et al. (1999) Existing customer relationship
Industry relationships
Unique competence
Tyler and Stanley (1999) Reliability
Assurance
Empathy
Table I. Responsiveness
Aspects of quality in the Proactivity
business-to-business Ojasalo (2000) Short-term quality
market Long-term quality

Table I is discussed in more detail in the following. Szmigin (1993) focused on service
business clients’ expectations of quality. She proposed a classification that encapsulates
three aspects of quality which can act as the basis for an ongoing review of
client/supplier relationship relevant to business-to-business services. The three elements
of the classification scheme were defined as “hard”, “soft”, and “outcome” quality. “Hard”
and “soft” quality refer to Grönroos’ (1984) concepts of technical quality and functional
quality. Technical quality can often be assessed in an objective manner, as any technical
dimension of a product might be, whereas functional quality is perceived in a much more
subjective way. “Outcome” quality refers to customers’ overall satisfaction with the
relationship. Szmigin (1993) suggested that three factors underpin an understanding of
the buyer’s quality requirements in a business relationship:
(1) an understanding of clients’ perceptions of quality;
(2) clients’ different quality priorities; and
(3) clients’ changing priorities, both over the duration of the relationship and
within any given decision-making unit.
Halinen (1996) examined professional business-to-business services and brought Findings on
forward three important aspects of quality. They are the: trade-offs
(1) final effects of the service on the client company’s business;
(2) price, cost, and value; and
(3) the processual nature of service performance.

Lapierre (1997) introduced a model of value in business-to-business professional

167
services. This model includes two levels: value exchange (fist level) and value in use
(second level). The first level of value is what the customer assesses during a
transaction, i.e. benefits that are a subjective measure of usefulness or the satisfaction
of needs resulting from consumption. The second level of value refers to organizational
customers’ outcomes. These outcomes relate to improved performance and competitive
advantage of the organizational customer. The first level, value exchange, includes the
following dimensions and their sub-dimensions:
.
Technical quality: reliability in budgets and schedules, information
understandability, information predictability, technical expertise, specialized
expertise, creativity.
.
Functional quality: integrity, responsiveness, professionalism.
.
Relational variables: partnership, involvement, confidence.
.
Image: reputation and credibility.

The second level, value in use, covers:

.
Financial element: cost reduction, revenues, profitability.
.
Social element: reduced accident rates, saved lives, improved standard of living.
.
Operational element: productivity, product development and deployment,
facilitation of operations.
.
Strategic element: better decisions, more enlightened decision.

Holmlund (1997) examined perceived quality in business-to-business relationships and

identified three quality dimensions: technical, social, and economic. Technical
dimension concerns the offering at the core in the value creating process in the
relationship and may consist of goods or services, or a bundle of products forming a
complete system or development project. It includes reliability, innovation,
conformance, aesthetics, and endurance. Social dimension concerns the social
interaction on the individual and company level. The results of social interactions on
the individual level include appeal, trust, acquaintance, respect, congeniality, and
pleasure. The results of social interactions on the company level cover inter-firm
cohesion, attraction, and trust. Economic dimension concerns the economic benefits
and costs of the relationship, such as pricing, costing, and productivity.
Marshall et al. (1998) explored service quality in the context internal
business-to-business customers. Internal customers are those within the own
organization. They identified six factors of service quality relevant for internal
business-to-business customers. First, customers want to be treated with respect. This
includes being treated in a friendly manner, being treated like an important and valued
customer, and exhibiting courtesy. Second, customers want value delivered. This
IJQRM includes finding the best price consistent with a delivery schedule, making sure the
23,2 customer is getting the best value, and attaining the best price consistent with quality
requirements. Third, customers expect problem solving. This includes having
sufficient knowledge to answer users’ questions, working with others to develop better
solutions to problems, and generally keeping things running smoothly for users.
Fourth, customers expect prompt and correct order processing. Fifth, customers want
168 conscientiousness, including keeping promises to do something by certain time, and
quick response to users’ messages. Sixth, customers want to manage vendors.
Characteristics of the vendor management dimension are checking with users before
switching to other suppliers, and a general willingness to consider new vendors.
Eriksson et al. (1999), examined supplier-perceived service quality in the
international business-to-business market in their study. They found that existing
customer relationship, industry relationships, and unique competence strongly
influence supplier-perceived service quality.
Tyler and Stanley (1999) examined service quality in the context of bank-corporate
relationships. They found the following five factors and their antecedents affecting
service quality:
(1) Reliability: minimal mistakes, not need to chase (quick handling of requests),
consistency, confidence.
(2) Assurance: technical knowledge, knowledge of bank stricture.
(3) Empathy: understanding customer needs, trust.
(4) Responsiveness: quick service.
(5) Proactivity: the bank should evolve and improve its procedures and technology.

Ojasalo (2000) introduced the concepts of short- and long-term quality in the context of
business-to-business professional services. Short-term quality generates customer
satisfaction that emerges immediately, but does not last long, and long-term quality
generates satisfaction that does not emerge instantly, but lasts a long time. Short-term
quality often represents solution to the symptoms, and long-term quality represents
solution to the underlying fundamental problem causing the symptoms. Of these two,
long-term quality is more important for relationship longevity.

Methodology
This paper is based on a larger empirical study in the context of business-to-business
professional services in which various quality and marketing related phenomena were
found, or inductively emerged, one of them dealing with quality for the individual and
for the company (Ojasalo, 1999). The study was based on in-depth interviews and
qualitative analysis (see, e.g. Gummesson, 2000; Marshall and Rossman, 1989; Taylor
and Bogdan, 1984).
The line of action of the examined business-to-business companies relates to
management consulting, namely recruitment/executive search services. This service is
used in situations where a problem can be solved by recruiting, although the
competence area of these service providers is much broader and involves human
resource management in general. The service consists of diagnosis, designing the
optimal solution, executing the solution, and follow-up. The examined service included
both the executive search (i.e. direct search or “head hunting”), and advertised search.
In executive search, the candidates are sought and contacted directly by the service Findings on
provider, and in advertised search this happens via newspapers or the internet. trade-offs
Although this study had a special focus on recruitment services, the companies
examined provided a large number of other management services and thus had
extensive experience in professional services in general.
Seven highly experienced senior consultants from five different companies, their
professional careers varying from six to 18, years were interviewed in extensive 169
multi-hour in-depth interviews which were tape recorded and transcribed. The data
were analyzed both between each interview and after they had all been conducted. The
data were analyzed in terms of systematic coding and categorization of descriptions
and statements given by the interviewees, as well as the formation of a synthesis that
grasps these empirical evidences (Wolcott, 1994; Alasuutari, 1995; Silverman, 1995;
Coffey and Atkinson, 1996). A theory developed in terms of qualitative/case-study
methodology is never proven, it is always a hypothesis or “an integrated set of
hypotheses” (Glaser, 1978, p. 134).
Pros and cons of a qualitative/case-study can be summarized as follows
(Gummesson, 2000; Yin, 1994):
(1) Advantages:
.
attempts to derive general conclusions from a limited number of cases;
.
may seek to arrive at specific conclusions regarding a single case;
.
may represent a powerful means in educating students;
.
can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory;
.
can be used both for generating theory and initiating change; and
.
opportunity to obtain a holistic view of a specific phenomenon or series of
events.
(2) Limitations:
.
lack of statistical reliability and validity;
.
can be used to generate hypotheses but not to test them; and
.
generalizations cannot be made.

Empirical findings
Based on the empirical study, this section, first, conceptualizes the nature of quality for
the individual and for the company in the business-to-business market. Next, by using
the developed concepts, it explains the empirical findings related to the processes
increasing the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the individual and for the
company.

Quality for the individual and for the company

A person representing his or her company can be understood to have the best interests of
the company in mind, on the one hand, and at the same time he or she also, as an
individual, has their own interests at heart. The best interests of the company are usually
the best interests of the individual. This means that quality for the individual and quality
for the company normally complement rather than exclude each other. When there is no
significant trade-off between the two, or when the likelihood for such a trade-off is low,
IJQRM there is naturally no particular need to distinguish these two perspectives. In that case, it
23,2 is reasonable just to talk about “quality” or “customer perceived quality”. However, the
empirical study shows that, sometimes there may be trade-off between the best interests
of an individual and the best interests of the company, and the concepts of quality for the
individual and for the company help in the understanding of such situations.
Quality for the individual refers to the benefits that the individual perceives to
170 contribute to his or her own wellbeing. The empirical data show that quality for the
individual includes two elements, the rational and the emotional. The rational element
of quality for the individual usually also represents quality for the company. However,
there are situations in which the latter does not represent the former. For example,
sometimes the best quality for the company is achieved by replacing an individual.
This causes financial loss to the replaced person, and may be harmful for his or her
future career opportunities. It thus clearly does not represent rational quality for the
individual. Emotional elements of this type of quality are often closely related to
personal relations and friendship between an individual from the customer company
and the consultant.
Quality for the company refers to the benefits which contribute to the customer
company’s organizational goals and well-being in an holistic sense. Organizational
goals are typically rational, and the wellbeing generated by quality for the company
typically goes beyond one individual in the organization, in other words it has a more
holistic nature. Quality for the company typically refers to benefits which contribute to
the customer company’s business and course of action, and to several individuals’
well-being in the organization.
There is one significant problem involved when considering quality for the
company, namely it is difficult to give any absolute and general view concerning
whose opinion should represent it. In this study, it is understood that quality for the
company is the opinion or perception of that person, or those persons, who hold(s) the
immediate power over the purchase decision, and thus also the power to continue or
terminate the customer relationship. Of course, his/her/their opinion is likely to be
affected by the opinions of several other persons, inside or outside of their own
organization, who do not have a direct power over the purchase decisions, but who
communicate relevant information to them. The present definition is market oriented
and implicitly aims at sales and long-term customer relationships through the
satisfaction of those persons who have the most important role in buying decisions and
relationship building.

Processes increasing the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the individual and
quality for the company
There is sometimes a trade-off between quality for the individual and for the company.
This section describes and explains findings related to processes that may influence
the likelihood of trade-off between the two. Such a trade-off emerges if the provided
service represents high quality for an individual but low quality for the company, or
vice versa. It should be noted that the processes identified in this section do not
necessarily cause such a trade-off, but they just seem to increase the risk.
First, a process affecting the likelihood of the above-mentioned quality trade-off
seems to be connected with the development of the relationship between the customer
and the service provider. The longer the cooperation continues, the higher is the
likelihood that quality for the individual is provided at the expense of quality for the Findings on
company. This process, which leads to relationship longevity, is called here the aging trade-offs
of the relationship. Personal relations, in other words friendship between the
representative of the customer company and the consultant, often deepen as the
relationship lengthens. This increases the likelihood of the best interests of the
individual being taken care at the expense of the best interests of the company. It also
seems that this development is not necessarily intentional or conscious. The consultant 171
may rather, over a long period, slowly and unconsciously become “blind” to facts
which might suggest a solution that may not be the most pleasant for an individual,
but it would be good for the company.
Furthermore, there seems to be another process that affects the likelihood of this
type of quality trade-off. This relates to the growth of the service provider’s customer
base. The more customers the service provider gets, in other words the bigger the
professional service company grows, the more independent it may become. Losing one
customer is relatively less damaging for a larger service company than for a small
company. Consequently, the likelihood of the best interests of an individual
representative of the customer company, who holds the power to continue or terminate
the relationship, being served at the expense of the company, diminishes. It should be
remembered, again, that there does not have to be any trade-off between quality for the
individual and quality for the company.
Figure 1 illustrates the findings on the dynamic processes influencing the likelihood
of trade-off between quality for the individual and for the company. It shows that the
aging of the relationship increases and growth of the service provider’s customer base
decreases the likelihood.

Discussion
Quality for the individual
Webster (1984, p. 38) refers to “individual members’ goals” as a determinant of
organizational buying behavior. It should be noted that in consumer services such as
fast food restaurants, quality is automatically quality for the individual only. Grönroos
(1990) suggests that when the buyer is an organization, there is a clear need to
distinguish the individual level. This clearly supports the relevance of the concept of
quality for the individual. Moreover, Holmlund (1996, pp. 44-7) developed the concept
of the scope of perception, which refers “to the width of quality perceptions of
relationships that involved individuals have”. Holmlund’s concept means that different
individuals perceive the relationship and its interactions differently. This also
indicates that there is reason to separate and conceptualize the quality perception of an

Figure 1.
Quality for the individual
at the expense of quality
for the company:
likelihood-affecting
processes
IJQRM individual. When it concerns social aspects of business relationship quality, Holmlund
23,2 (1997) distinguished individual and company levels. This supports the present
distinction between individual and company level aspects of quality. However, quality
is usually much more than just social issues. The present concepts of quality for the
individual and for the company are not restricted on social phenomena. In line with the
present distinction, Chumpitaz and Paparoidamis (2004) examined service quality in
172 the context of industrial buyers and, in line with the present distinction between
individual and company levels of quality, they conclude that: “Even though the
individual members of a buying centre are guided by the company’s objectives, they
have their own motivations and objectives and evaluate the performance of the product
or service according to their own reference standards”.
In the context of goal setting theory, Locke et al. (1988) bring forward the concepts of
internal and external factors of goal commitment. The logic of the present concepts of
quality for the individual and for the company resembles the concepts of internal and
external determinants of goal commitment. Internal factors of goal commitment relate to
one’s own perceptions on how favorable are the various aspects (changes of performing
well, expectancy of success, and self reward) of the goal in question. Similarly, quality for
the individual is based on an individual perception of how favorable something is to
himself or herself. External factors of goal commitment relate to external authority, peer
group influence, and external rewards and incentives. Similarly, once quality for the
company is based on organizational goals, then, from an individual’s viewpoint, these
goals are set by an external authority and external rewards are given for achieving them.

Quality for the company

When the buyer is a company, an organization, the major problem is to identify the
individual or individuals, inside or outside the customer company, whose opinion or
judgment can be called “quality for the company”. Deming (1986, p. 168) recognizes
this problem when it is a question of quality in general:
What is quality? Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent. Who is the judge of
quality?
One alternative would be to understand that the opinion of a certain person or persons
from inside the customer company represents quality for the company, or possibly
“organization-perceived quality”. In this case, this person or these persons first have to
be identified, which is not always easy. In fact, by identifying them one already takes a
stand on this matter. Moreover, if there are several persons involved, it is possible for
one to say that the quality excellently meets organizational goals, and for another to
have the totally opposite opinion. This may happen because of underlying conflicts
between individual and organizational interests, or because of conflicts between the
interests of different individuals.
However, even if the service does not create any trade-off between individual and
organizational wellbeing, or between wellbeing between different individuals, it is still
possible that different individuals in the customer company interpret the
organizational goals and its holistic wellbeing differently. Thus, in any case, there
will be different views inside the customer company of the kind of quality that best
serves organizational goals. Edvardsson et al. (1994, p. 98) put this in a nutshell by
concluding that:
 The factors which have the greatest impact on decisions and actions are not those related to Findings on
the formal goals, but those resulting from the interpretations of the goals made by the various
actors. trade-offs
Nevertheless, from the sales and long-term cooperation viewpoint, as understood in
this study, it is natural to think that quality for the company is the opinion or
perception of that person, or those persons, who hold(s) the immediate power over the
purchase decision, and thus also the power to continue or terminate the customer 173
relationship. This approach to quality in the case of an organizational customer also
seems to be highly relevant.
This alternative view on quality for the company resembles Grönroos’ (1990)
purchasing agent concept, which was developed to further understanding of service
quality in situations in which the customer is a group. This concept refers to the
individual who represents the opinion of the whole group. Moreover, Holmlund (1996,
p. 43) argues that when the parties to the relationship have several persons whose
perception is affected by the relational cooperation, then: “it may be assumed that the
perception of the person who has the power to make vital decisions in the firm
outweighs the perceptions of others when there are differing views”. According to her,
the termination of the relationship may be one of those vital decisions.

Processes increasing the likelihood of trade-off between quality for the individual and
quality for the company
Trade-off in quality between different actors can also be called a conflict of interest.
Velasquez (1982) distinguishes actual and potential conflicts of interest. The former
refers to something that is done, while the latter refers merely to the motivation or
temptation to do it. The idea of approaching different kinds of quality trade-off in
terms of likelihood-affecting processes is supported by this concept of Velasquez.
Basically, the higher the likelihood of quality trade-off, the higher the potential conflict
of interest. This study broadens the perspective by identifying two dynamic processes
affecting the likelihood.
Ford’s (1982, p. 298) view clearly supports the finding that the aging of the
relationship increases the likelihood of quality for the individual being provided at the
expense of quality for the company. He concludes that in the long-term stage of
relationships, “Difficulties can arise when company interests are subordinated to those
of the personal relationships” (Ford, 1982). The International Labour Office (ILO)
publication (Kubr, 1996), on the other hand, clearly supports the finding that the
growth of the service provider’s customer base decreases the likelihood of quality for
the individual being provided at the expense of quality for the company by concluding
that:
Getting large contracts from a small number of clients reduces the amount of time spent on
acquisition work and ensures regular income. However, it may create an excessive
dependency on one or a small number of major clients, and even individual managers of the
client organization (Kubr, 1996, p. 512).
This suggests that if a service provider has a small number of customers, this increases
the likelihood of over-dependency on individual managers of the client organization,
which consequently increases the likelihood of quality for the individual being
provided at the expense of quality for the company.
IJQRM Managerial implications
23,2 The following managerial implications, related to delivering quality in the business-to
business market, emerge from the presents study. First of all, it is important to identify
the persons(s), who hold the power in buying decisions, who make prior- and
post-purchase evaluation of the quality of the products/services, and who affect decision
makers’ opinions. These persons are in the key position in respect of quality for both the
174 individual and company. When it concerns quality for the individual, it is important to
understand what kind of personal advantage or disadvantage buying the
product/service might cause to the key individual(s). These personal advantages or
disadvantaged may relate to monetary incentives given to key individuals in the
customer organization based on how successful deals they are able to make as buyers.
The incentive system may not always serve the organizational goals in the best possible
way, even though it is meant to do so. Sometimes, the criteria for rewarding buyers may
not be effective or updated to correspond to the changed environment. This may cause
the buyer has to favor more or less “wrong” kind of quality to get personal incentives.
Similarly, career opportunities of these key individuals may affect their judgments on
quality. For example, an IT-system buyer who is an expert on Unix may favor
Unix-based software in his quality judgments because he believes that this technology
choice will give him better career prospects in his organization rather than technologies
which are unfamiliar for him. Also, certain kind of products/services may facilitate the
ease of the key person’s job, and thus represent higher quality for the individual. On one
hand, this may give the individual an opportunity to do more important and productive
tasks. On the other, if the overall productivity does not increase, then, from the company
perspective, such quality does not service the best interest of the company. Moreover,
sometimes for some subjective reason, the key individual(s) in the buying organizations
just do not like the persons representing the selling company. This may be due to the
country or place of origin, language or dialect, dressing, age, sex, religion, etc. All these
subjective factors, which may be irrelevant for quality for the company, can sometimes
affect quality for the individual. The selling company should remember that all what
represents quality for the individual may not be expressed aloud. Still, quality for the
individual may have a significant influence on the prior- and post purchase evaluation
of the quality as well as buying decision – particularly if the competing
products/services represent equal quality for the company.
Quality for the company relates to customer company’s organizational goals and
well being in an holistic sense (not just well-being of certain individual). This often has
to do with the customer organization’s desire to increase their competitive strength,
shareholder value, revenues, market share, or improve their technologies and image.
Quality for the company may also contribute to the decrease of costs and employee
turnover. The challenge of the selling company is to be informed about the various
organizational goals. However, often the buying company is reluctant to tell about their
future plans to their vendors. Organizational goals related to new product
development, mergers, changes in technology, penetration into new markets, etc. are
often kept in secrecy, thus making it hard to the selling company to know what quality
for the company should be like. Establishing long-term relationships with customer
organizations facilitates the development of trust and consequently sharing of
confidential information, which in turn helps to understand what is required for
providing quality for the company. The selling company should constantly invest in
obtaining information on their customers’ activity and quality preferences. This may Findings on
happen in terms of formal customer or industry specific inquires. Valuable information trade-offs
may also be obtained in each face-to-face or voice-to-voice encounter with the customer
organization, by always trying to learn something new. Information related to quality
may also be received by making observations on the customer’s sites, in other words
“learning by walking around”.
175
Conclusions
The aim of this article was to increase knowledge of the nature of quality in the
business-to-business market. The paper was based on an empirical study in
business-to-business professional services.
The earlier quality research has paid little attention to differences at individual and
organizational levels. There was a clear need to increase knowledge in this respect. The
findings of this study broaden the perspective. They extended understanding of what
quality can mean when the buyer is an organization. In this respect, the relevance of
understanding how quality relates to the wellbeing of individuals and to organizational
goals is established, and the corresponding quality concepts are developed.
The developed concepts of quality for the individual and for the company made it
possible to explore the dynamic processes affecting the likelihood of quality trade-off.
The quality research has hardly touched on this issue, and thus there was a clear
knowledge gap. This study increased our knowledge in this respect in the following
way. Two different dynamic processes affecting the likelihood of trade-off between
quality for the individual and for the company were identified. It was found that, on the
one hand, the aging of a relationship increases the likelihood of this kind of quality
trade-off, and on the other hand, that growth in the service provider’s customer base
decreases such a likelihood.
The following avenues for further research can be suggested. The present empirical
study showed that, quality for the individual includes both the rational and emotional
elements. Quality for the company, on the other hand, relates to rational organizational
benefits. Indeed, the role of rational and emotional elements of quality in the
business-to-business market should be examined in more detail. Moreover, this study
explained how personal relations in a long relationship may cause that, quality for the
individual is provided at the expense of quality for the company. In general, the
overtime development of quality for the individual and for the company during a
long-term relationship would be an interesting topic for an in-depth longitudinal
research. Furthermore, dimensions of quality for the individual and for the company
and their priorities may vary in different cultures. A cross-cultural survey would be
required to shed light on this issue.

References
Abbott, L. (1955), Quality and Competition, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Alasuutari, P. (1995), Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies,
Sage Publications, London.
Buzzel, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Choffray, J.-R. and Lilien, G.L. (1978), “Assessing response to industrial marketing strategy”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 20-31.
IJQRM Chumpitaz, R. and Paparodamis, N.G. (2004), “Service quality and marketing performance in
business-to-business markets: exploring the mediating role of client satisfaction”,
23,2 Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 235-48.
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996), Making Sense of Qualitative Data, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis. Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, MIT,
176 Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Dick, G., Gallimore, K. and Brown, J.C. (2001), “ISO 9000 and quality emphasis. An empirical
study of front-room versus back-room dominant service industries”, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 114-36.
Edvardsson, B., Thomasson, B. and Ovretveit, J. (1994), Quality of Service, McGraw-Hill,
Maidenhead.
Eriksson, K., Majkgård, A. and Sharma, D.D. (1999), “Service quality by relationships in the
international market”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 361-75.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1951), Quality Control: Principles, Practice, and Administration, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Ford, D. (1982), “The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets”, in
Håkansson, H. (Ed.), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods:
An Interaction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 288-303.
Garvin, D.A. (1984), “What does product quality really mean?”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions of quality”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 101-9.
Gilmore, H.L. (1974), “Product conformance cost”, Quality Progress, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 16-19.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Grönroos, C. (1983), Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in
Service Competition, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Håkansson, H. and Wootz, B. (1975), Företags inköpsbeteende, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Halinen, A. (1996), “Service quality in professional business services”, in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E.
and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 5, JAI Press,
London, pp. 315-41.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, E.W. Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994),
“Service-profit chain audit”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 170-4.
Holmlund, M. (1996), A Theoretical Framework of Perceived Quality in Business Relationships,
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration Research Reports, Swedish
School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.
Holmlund, M. (1997), Perceived Quality in Business Relationships, Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration, Helsinki.
Juran, J.M., Gryna, F.M. and Bingham, R.S. (Eds) (1974), Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Juran, J.M., Seder, L.A. and Bingham, R.S. (Eds) (1962), Quality Control Handbook, 2nd ed., Findings on
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
trade-offs
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984), “Attractive quality and must be quality”,
Quality, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 39-48.
Kubr, M. (Ed.) (1996), Management Consulting: A Guide to the Profession, ILO, Geneva.
Lapierre, J. (1997), “What does value mean in business-to-business professional services”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 377-97. 177
Levitt, T. (1972), “Product-line approach to service”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50 No. 5,
pp. 41-52.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. and Erez, M. (1988), “The determinants of goal commitment”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 23-39.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Marshall, G.W., Baker, J. and Finn, D.F. (1998), “Exploring internal customer service quality”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 381-92.
Miettilä, A. and Möller, K. (1990), “Interaction perspective onto professional services: a conceptual
analysis”, in Fiocca, R. and Snehota, I. (Eds), Research Developments in Industrial
Marketing and Purchasing, Proceedings of the 6th IMP Conference, Milan.
Ojasalo, J. (1999), Quality Dynamics in Professional Services, The Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration, Helsinki.
Ojasalo, J. (2000), “Managing short- and long-term quality in building professional business
relationships”, in Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W., Johnston, R. and Scheuing, E.E. (Eds),
Service Quality in the New Economy: Interdisciplinary and International Dimensions,
International Service Quality Association, New York, NY, pp. 47-56.
Ojasalo, J. (2001a), “Key account management at company and individual levels in
business-to-business relationships”, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 199-216.
Ojasalo, J. (2001b), “Managing customer expectations in professional services”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 200-12.
Ojasalo, J. (2002a), “Customer commitment in key account management”, The Marketing Review,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 301-18.
Ojasalo, J. (2002b), “Satisfaction capital of a relationship in professional business- to-business
services”, in Elliot, G. and Barnes, J. (Eds), 2001 ServSIG Services Research Conference:
New Horizons in Services Marketing, AMA American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 52-7.
Ojasalo, J. (2002c), “Managing customer expectations in professional services”, in Cortada, J.W.
(Ed.), The Quality Yearbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 130-46.
Ojasalo, J. (2004), “Key network management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 195-205.
Ojasalo, J. and Puhakainen, P. (2003), “Managing trust in electronic commerce transaction”,
Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 1-12.
Parasuraman, A. (1998), “Customer service in business-to-business markets: an agenda for
research”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 309-21.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.
IJQRM Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45.
23,2 Sebastianelli, R. and Tamimi, N. (2002), “How product quality dimensions relate to defining
quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 442-53.
Sheth, J.N. (1973), “A model of industrial buyer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 50-6.
178 Silverman, D. (1995), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction, Sage Publications, London.
Strandvik, T. and Liljander, V. (1994), “Relationship strength in bank services”, Proceedings from
1994 Research Conference on Relationship Marketing, June 11-13, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Szmigin, I.T.D. (1993), “Managing quality in business-to-business services”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1984), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Tyler, K. and Stanley, E. (1999), “UK bank-corporate relationhips: large corporates’ expectations
of service”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 158-70.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1984), Industrial Marketing Strategy, John Wiley Sons, New York, NY.
Webster, F.E. Jr and Wind, Y. (1972), “A general model of organizational buying behavior”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, April, pp. 12-19.
Velasquez, M.G. (1982), Business Ethics. Concepts and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wilson, D.T. and Mummalaneni, V. (1988), Modeling and Measuring Buyer-Seller Relationships,
Report 3-1988, Institute for the Study of Business Markets, University Park, PA.
Wolcott, H.F. (1994), Transforming Qualitative Data. Description, Analysis, and Interpretation,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Sage, London.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service, Free Press,
New York, NY.

Further reading
Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1994), “Interviewing. The art of science”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln,
Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Corresponding author
Jukka Ojasalo can be contacted at: jukka.ojasalo@lut.fi

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints