Peter Fraser
Trusted Information Resource
<quote>
What do you mean by:
</snip>"Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.</snip>
Emphasis mine.
</quote>
Stijloor
Until this version of the standard appeared, I had never heard of anyone advertising a job for a "product realization manager", or discussing why their "product realization processes" were not as efficient as their competitors, or saying that "their products haven't been realized as planned so they have had more complaints from customers last month". And I still haven't!
It is a manufactured concept because someone (a committee?) made it up. It doesn't relate easily to what managers think they are responsible for, and it certainly means nothing to most members of staff who are "doing product realization". In fact it is a manufacturing concept, which is why these definitions and terminology are so non-intuitive for people in service industries and administration departments.
And it shoots itself in the foot when put alongside the definition of a "product" as the "result of a process": so processes produce products - unless they are "non-product realization processes"...? The advice "if you are in a hole, stop digging" would seem to apply to the definition of terms to explain other terms which patently causes more confusion.
There must be an easier way to define the basics, so that "normal" managers and staff don't need consultants or "experts" to explain what they need to understand to be able to apply the standard. It is counter-productive to define a concept, then to restrict (or in some cases to change) its definition, and then to give examples to explain what you mean. (Sorry, but this has always been a bugbear of mine...)
What do you mean by:
</snip>"Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.</snip>
Emphasis mine.
</quote>
Stijloor
Until this version of the standard appeared, I had never heard of anyone advertising a job for a "product realization manager", or discussing why their "product realization processes" were not as efficient as their competitors, or saying that "their products haven't been realized as planned so they have had more complaints from customers last month". And I still haven't!
It is a manufactured concept because someone (a committee?) made it up. It doesn't relate easily to what managers think they are responsible for, and it certainly means nothing to most members of staff who are "doing product realization". In fact it is a manufacturing concept, which is why these definitions and terminology are so non-intuitive for people in service industries and administration departments.
And it shoots itself in the foot when put alongside the definition of a "product" as the "result of a process": so processes produce products - unless they are "non-product realization processes"...? The advice "if you are in a hole, stop digging" would seem to apply to the definition of terms to explain other terms which patently causes more confusion.
There must be an easier way to define the basics, so that "normal" managers and staff don't need consultants or "experts" to explain what they need to understand to be able to apply the standard. It is counter-productive to define a concept, then to restrict (or in some cases to change) its definition, and then to give examples to explain what you mean. (Sorry, but this has always been a bugbear of mine...)
