Design - Widget vs. Service Organization Product

[Marc]

Typically in service operations design is not addressed. However, IMHO many service organizations do, in fact, design their services. Hospitals are, I believe, an example, where treatment and reaction plans are 'designed'.

A hypothetical company sells extended warranties. Contracts come from stores such as Walmart which sell appliances and such. The company selling the extended service contracts does not actually do any service - actual repair/replacement is contracted out. As I interpret their business system, they design the extended warranty (service) contracts they sell.

How would you address the design issue in a company such as this?

[David Mullins]

A quick answer:

Design of a Service is the development process where a customer's needs are translated into a proposal, quote, tender, contract or contract change proposal to fully meet the customer's requirement. The design specification include as a minimum the requirement for:
a. a structure for management/supervision;
b. a structure for quality;
c. a structure for performance of tasks to deliver a defined "service";
d. the provision for customer feedback, quality control and assurance;
e. the identification of needed human and material resources, and
f. the costing of those resources

I'll send you a cleansed example procedure for design in the Service sector.

Cheers.

------------------

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:32:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Design: Widgit vs. Service /Smith/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries

Marc,

In the same way that service organisations design their services, manufacturing operations design their processes, and project organisations design the project plans.

By the logic you're suggesting, we should apply design control to process and project design.

As a service provider myself, I find the (regrettably frequent) suggestion (often by certifiers/registrars) that organisations like me should use design control in development of services rather ludicrous. It's relatively hard (although possible) to apply it to chemical products, but at least there's a real product development process in place there. Not so for a service.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries

[Roger Eastin]

I understand where Mr.Humphries is coming from, but I think that, as ISO implementers, service providers will have to really think through how design control applies to them. I don't mean to dream up something, but I think the challenge is to look at the service provided and think about how that service "came to be". The methodology for the "came to be" could be design control. I agree with Barb that this will be a very interesting element for service providers to implement.

One area which is a hot potato in Australia at present is the 'Aged Care Industry' accreditation. Perhaps it is possible to design the service provided in these institutions on a 'case by case' basis or even generically.

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:07:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Design: Widgit vs. Service /../Humphries/Naish/Scalies

From: Charley Scalies

> From: PNaish
SNIP
> As a service provider we do have design. We have some standard off the
> shelf designs that is standard training packages...
> Then we have custom services which are determined with our clients as to
> what they want and a time frame. We have found it very beneficial to
> maintain this system so that both we and are clients are happy when the
> project is over.

If the "new ISO9000" has any benefits at all, I think one might be that it could help people look at the intent of the requirements and not just at the words, thereby allowing them to take and use what benefits their particular application.

I repeatedly stress to my customers (almost to the point where some of them threaten to toss me out if they hear it again) that if they are unable to tell me what the purpose of every requirement is, in terms of what is it expected to accomplish, i.e., what "good" is it?, then they really don't understand the requirement. BTW, applying that same concept to every procedure you write can be a superb and relatively painless way to identify and establish the functional objectives the new ISO9000 talks about. "Why am I doing this?" How will I know (measure) if it worked or not?"

What you have seen from some of the comments on this topic is the "baggage" we all have - our paradigms. They continue to get in our way. The best I have ever been able to do is to be aware of the ones I have and then smack my own hand, hard, whenever I catch myself being warped by them.

Charley Scalies

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:14:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Design: Widgit vs. Service /../Humphries/Naish/Hitchcock

From: Al Hitchcock - littleredtruck.com

I have employed ISO-9001 4.4 in numerous organizations both in retail and service environments using the design and development model that the standard provides. This is where you make your home run. One thing that always bugged me was companies that do design development work, either tangible or intangible product design and somehow think that they are excluded from the standard. They exclude 4.4 from their quality system. Junk in - junk out. If you design it. Control it. ISO is very simply put as communications within an organization. Why wouldn't you want your designers/engineers talking to your suppliers/ customers/ manufacturers/ and installers/servicing dept as part of a formal process and include them in design reviews. This stuff is fundamental and makes business sense whether your designing services for clients or hardware. 4.4 is the ISO home run in my opinion and I've seen it do wonderful things improving product/service quality. If you do this... do that 4.4.

My humble opinion and experience.

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:45:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Design: Widgit vs. Service /../Naish/Hitchcock/Kozenko

From: Write9000

> 4.4 is the ISO home run in my opinion and I've seen it do wonderful
> things improving product/service quality.

Applause to Al for this statement (and, for those of you who don't know the game of baseball, a "home run" is a good thing <g> ).

I was involved with an engineering outfit that performed every one of the 4.4 requirements, whenever it responded to a publicly issued Request for Proposal. In effect, that firm's Proposal was a custom designed service package. Because of "old school" thinking regarding 4.4 applying only to manufactured products, only ohhhh, one out of ten people at that firm could follow my thinking. So I'm pleased to see this list come up with so many favorable applications for the 4.4 requirements, especially as it pertains to professional services as the "product."

David Kozenko