My question never changed. Your understanding of the comment that I posted for Randy changed.
Really?

I think you're shifting ground. I'm OK with someone changing their mind in the course of a debate or with a debate bringing up a new avenue of discussion. But your 'question never changed'?
For the sake of accuracy, then.
Andy asked you very early on (in response to your post to Randy):
Are you suggesting that these requirements, 7.2 et al, only apply when there's a customer RFQ/PO, Jim?
Your reply:
Given the title of 7.2, "Customer-related processes", can you come to another conclusion?
I'll take that as a yes.
You went on to say:
Also consider that 7.3.2, "Design and development inputs", covers gathering requirements for design and development.
Why would you also need to use 7.2.1 to gather requirements for design and development when there is no customer yet?
And in response to considering whether 7.2.1 applies when gathering requirements for design and development when there is no customer yet:
That makes no sense.
7.2 is "customer related processes". How can you gather customer requirements when there is no customer? You can't!
7.3.1 covers the same ground. That is where you belong when there is no customer.
And yet again:
What I'm trying to get across is that if there is no customer involvement yet (and if it is wisdom for that to be the case is not the point) 7.2.1 does not apply.
In other words, 7.2.1 is not always a precursor to design. Trying to make it so goes beyond the scope of the standard.
Besides, as I said before, 7.3.2 covers the same ground. Actually it coves more, since it is not limited to customer input.
I think that was the first time when you started talking about 7.2.1 being a 'precursor' to design which you then mentioned again:
I'll not take this further so if you are still in disagreement, take your best shots.
I believe you are going beyond the requirements of the standard when you try to apply 7.2.1 as a precursor to design when there is not yet any customer involvement.
Obviously you feel differently, but I fail to see the "shall" to hang that thinking on.
Then you firmed up that position:
It is agreed that frequently or even most of the time that information gathered from 7.2.1 feeds 7.3.2. It is obvious, as they are even phrased similarly.
That does not establish, however, a REQUIREMENT to seek customer input before undertaking design.
I cannot resiist quoting Sidney's pithy response:
Really? A requirement from what source? ISO 9001? ISO 9004? Better business practices? Business 101?
An organization that would engage in a costly New Product Development process "in the vacuum", devoided of any input from potential customers, users and consumers should be awarded the
Darwin award, in the corporate category.
'Show me the shall' is not the be-all and end-all of the position. (That's just very blinkered thinking, I believe.)
When I started this separate thread, I summarised my understanding of the question at hand. Now, if that was wrong, why didn't you say so? It was an excellent opportunity for you to clarify the question if you disagreed with my summary. To make this quite clear as I could, I
explicitly invited this correction!
Zilch.
You didn't.
Given all that, I find it hard to accept your saying that your position never changed, and pointing toward
my understanding (or lack thereof) instead. Presumably you also include in this supposed lack of understanding Andy, Sidney et al? Sorry, it won't wash. Nope and nope again.
