Garvin’s seminal work “What Does ‘Product Quality’ Really Mean?” defines product quality based on five approaches: transcendent, product-based, user-based, manufacturing-based, and value-based. In addition to presenting five definitions of product quality, Garvin presents eight dimensions of product quality: performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality. The purpose of this research is to present a taxonomy for establishing product quality metrics for basketball shoes based on Garvin’s eight dimensions and the user-based definition of product quality. There is no clear explanation for what constitutes a properly fitted and usable basketball shoe. Constructing a multi-dimensional basketball shoe quality taxonomy, as presented in this paper, captures relationships between features and user needs to improve the fitness for use in basketball shoes beyond commonly-used marketing jargon. Several contextual relationships of basketball are identified and associated with the requirements of basketball players, thereby resulting in a basketball shoe quality taxonomy that defines the relationships of shoe features to user preference. This taxonomy can be used to derive what product quality means to the basketball athlete and thus improve the decision-making process for the basketball shoe wearer and coaching staff.
ColeCL. Nike’s America/America’s Michael Jordan. In: AndrewsDL (ed.) Michael Jordan, Inc: Corporate sport, media culture, and late modern America. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001, pp.65−103.
2.
PributSRichieJr D. Separating the buzz from the biomechanics: a guide to athletic shoe trends & innovations. Podiatry Manage2004; 85(23): 85–88
3.
GarvinDA.What does “product quality” really mean. Sloan Manage Rev1984; 25.
4.
HildebrandtSKristensenKKanjiG, et al. Quality culture and TQM. Total Qual Manage1991; 2(1): 1–16.
5.
EdwardsCD.The meaning of quality. Qual Progress1968; 1(10): 36–39.
6.
KuehnAADayRL.Strategy of product quality. Harvard Bus Rev1962; 40(6): 100–110.
7.
JuranJMGrynaFMBinghamRS.Juran’s quality handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.
GrunerKEHomburgC.Does customer interaction enhance new product success?J Bus Res2000; 49(1): 1–14.
10.
KumarNScheerLKSteenkampJBE. The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. J Mark Res1995; 32(1): 54–65.
11.
MohrJNevinJR.Communication strategies in marketing channels: a theoretical perspective. J Mark1990; 54(4): 36–51.
12.
CurtisCKLaudnerKGMcLodaTA, et al. The role of shoe design in ankle sprain rates among collegiate basketball players. J Athlet Train2008; 43(3): 230–233.
13.
HartsonRPylaPS. The UX book: process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2012.
LuczakTBurchRFLewisE, et al. Athletics wearable technology state of the art review: what 113 strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers from the USA said about technology in sports. Int J Sports Sci Coaching2019; 15: 26–40.
18.
AsplundCABrownDL.The running shoe prescription: fit for performance. Physician Sportsmed2005; 33(1): 17–24.
19.
LamWKSterzingTCheungJTM. Reliability of a basketball specific testing protocol for footwear fit and comfort perception. Footwear Sci2011; 3(3): 151–158.
20.
RileyPOKentRWDierksTA, et al. Foot kinematics and loading of professional athletes in American football-specific tasks. Gait Posture2013; 38(4): 563–569.
21.
LiuHWuZLamWK.Collar height and heel counter-stiffness for ankle stability and athletic performance in basketball. Res Sports Med2017; 25(2): 209–218.
22.
LeongHFLamWKNgWX, et al. Center of pressure and perceived stability in basketball shoes with soft and hard midsoles. J Appl Biomech2018; 34(4): 284–290.
23.
BraunerTZwinzscherMSterzingT.Basketball footwear requirements are dependent on playing position. Footwear Sci2012; 4(3): 191–198.
24.
CongYLamWKCheungJTM, et al. In-shoe plantar tri-axial stress profiles during maximum-effort cutting maneuvers. J Biomech2014; 47(16): 3799–3806
25.
BeckhamGSuchomelTMizuguchiS.Force plate use in performance monitoring and sport science testing. New Stud Athlet2014; 3: 25–37.
26.
McPoilTG.Athletic footwear: design, performance and selection issues. J Sci Med Sport2000; 3(3): 260–267.
27.
BlacheYBeguinAMonteilK.Effects of various parameters of basketball shoes on vertical jumping performance: a case study. Sci Sports2011; 26(1): 48–50.
28.
BrizuelaGGarciaAFerrandisR, et al. (ed.). Influence of footwear on the ankle sprain production mechanism in basketball. In: ISBS-conference proceedings archive, Portugal, 1996.
29.
Cámara TobalinaJCalleja-GonzálezJMartínez de SantosR, et al. The effect of basketball footwear on the vertical ground reaction force during the landing phase of drop jumps. Revista de psicología del deporte2013; 22(1): 4.
30.
FrederickE (ed.). Optimal frictional properties for sport shoes and sport surfaces. In: ISBS conference proceedings archive, 1993.
31.
CaselliMA.Selecting the proper athletic shoe. Podiatry Manage2006; 25(8): 147.
GriffinLYAlbohmMJArendtEA, et al. Understanding and preventing noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a review of the Hunt Valley II meeting, January 2005. Am J Sports Med2006; 34(9): 1512−1532.
34.
ChumanovESSchacheAGHeiderscheitBC, et al. Hamstrings are most susceptible to injury during the late swing phase of sprinting, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. British Assoc Sport Exerc Med2012; 46: 90.
McClayISRobinsonJRAndriacchiTP, et al. A profile of ground reaction forces in professional basketball. J Appl Biomech1994; 10(3): 222–236.
37.
LafortuneMA.New approach to assess in vivo rearfoot control of court footwear during side-stepping moves. J Appl Biomech1997; 13(2): 197–204.
38.
LakeMJ.Determining the protective function of sports footwear. Ergonomics2000; 43(10): 1610−1621.
39.
NiggBSegesserB.Biomechanical and orthopedic concepts in sport shoe construction. Med Sci Sports Exerc1992; 24(5): 595–602.
40.
BishopJLNurseMABeyMJ.Do high-top shoes reduce ankle inversion? A dynamic x-ray analysis of aggressive cutting in a high-top and low-top shoe. Footwear Sci2014; 6(1): 21–26.
41.
CavanaghPRLafortuneMA.Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech1980; 13(5): 397–406.
42.
SnelJDellemanNHeerkensY, et al. Shock-absorbing characteristics of running shoes during actual running. Biomechanics IX-B1985; 1(4): 133−138.
BrizuelaGLlanaSFerrandisR, et al. The influence of basketball shoes with increased ankle support on shock attenuation and performance in running and jumping. J Sports Sci1997; 15(5): 505–515.
45.
StefanyshynDJNiggBM.Influence of midsole bending stiffness on joint energy and jump height performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc2000; 32(2): 471–476.
46.
WerdMB.Athletic shoe lacing in sports medicine. In: Athletic footwear and orthoses in sports medicine. Springer, 2017, pp.107−114.
47.
VerhagenEAvan MechelenWde VenteW.The effect of preventive measures on the incidence of ankle sprains. Clin J Sport Med2000; 10(4): 291–296.
48.
FüllerJJaweckiGMühlbacherH.Innovation creation by online basketball communities. J Bus Res2007; 60(1): 60–71.
49.
BeynnonBDMurphyDFAlosaDM.Predictive factors for lateral ankle sprains: a literature review. J Athlet Train2002; 37(4): 376.
ChanMEstèveDFourniolsJY, et al. Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med2012; 56(3): 137–156.
53.
ChenMMaYLiY, et al. Wearable 2.0: enabling human-cloud integration in next generation healthcare systems. IEEE Commun Mag2017; 55(1): 54–61.
54.
SaucierDSTurnerALuczakT, et al. Closing the wearable gap—part IV: 3D motion capture cameras versus soft robotic sensors comparison of Gait movement assessment. Electronics2019; 8(12): 1382.
55.
SaucierDLuczakTNguyenP, et al. Closing the wearable gap—part II: sensor orientation and placement for foot and ankle joint kinematic measurements. Sensors2019; 19(16): 3509.
56.
ChanderHStewartESaucierD, et al. Closing the wearable gap—part III: use of stretch sensors in detecting ankle joint kinematics during unexpected and expected slip and trip perturbations. Electronics2019; 8(10): 1083.
57.
LuczakTSaucierDBurchV, et al. Closing the wearable gap: mobile systems for kinematic signal monitoring of the foot and ankle. Electronics2018; 7(7): 117.
58.
LuczakTBurchVReubenF, et al. Closing the wearable gap—part V: development of a pressure-sensitive sock utilizing soft sensors. Sensors2020; 20(1): 208.
