Can this be a case for Design and Development Exclusion

[Paul Simpson]

Application engineering certainly can be design. Figuring out how to make it to the customer's design is not design, but application engineering most certainly can be.

Now, see, I was trying to draw a distinction between what I called applications engineering (where an organization puts together a series of component parts to satisfy a customer requirement) and 'design' where an organization prepares a unique solution to satisfy a customer requirement. The purpose of drawing the distinction was to try to shed some light on the question and that is why I used the different terms.

You can't then use the terms I offered up and say: 'Well that might be design!' Or have I lost the purpose of a thread?

What is obvious here is that the OP needs to be more forthcoming with information. Until he does, all indications to me is that his company is heavily involved with design.

This is not obvious at all! I have been trying to find out from the beginning from the OP exactly what they do. From what they have said I don't personally think any further information is required. Please enlighten us as to what further information is required from the OP before you will have enough to decide whether they design or not?

 

[Big Jim]

Now, see, I was trying to draw a distinction between what I called applications engineering (where an organization puts together a series of component parts to satisfy a customer requirement) and 'design' where an organization prepares a unique solution to satisfy a customer requirement. The purpose of drawing the distinction was to try to shed some light on the question and that is why I used the different terms.

You can't then use the terms I offered up and say: 'Well that might be design!' Or have I lost the purpose of a thread?


This is not obvious at all! I have been trying to find out from the beginning from the OP exactly what they do. From what they have said I don't personally think any further information is required. Please enlighten us as to what further information is required from the OP before you will have enough to decide whether they design or not?

The example you gave, that of buying catalog parts and assembling them for a new purpose, is a very bad example of "no design". In fact, it looks like it would be design, at least in most cases. I should have pointed it out when you first proposed it. My fault for ignoring it earlier.

The OP seems to want to tell us what he thinks we want to hear. That is why I think he needs to be more forthcoming. If he feels that his companies buying catalog parts and assembling them is not design, he should tell us why.

You have made some conclusions from incomplete information and they may not be accurate conclusions.

 

[Paul Simpson]

The example you gave, that of buying catalog parts and assembling them for a new purpose, is a very bad example of "no design".

Yet again you misquote me for some reason. What I actually said (and I even provided you with a link to the post) was:

If on the other hand there are manufacturer / customer / industry standards for a product or service and a customer just asks for one of these, there is no original thought involved, we select from a catalogue or make one up from a whole series of catalogue components then there is no design.

So it is not a case of the customer coming to the organization and 'buying' from the catalogue but of them bringing their need, the supplier looking at what they need and, based on extablish industry standards saying: 'You need a system comprising: 1 of these, 17 of these and 12 of these, all joined together by 50 metres (yards) of this kind of cable.

In fact, it looks like it would be design, at least in most cases. I should have pointed it out when you first proposed it. My fault for ignoring it earlier.

OK. Please take advantage of this second opportunity and explain to me how selection of catalogue items and reconfiguring them constitutes design.

The OP seems to want to tell us what he thinks we want to hear. That is why I think he needs to be more forthcoming. If he feels that his companies buying catalog parts and assembling them is not design, he should tell us why.

You do the OP a disservice. As a shy poster they may not have the experience of the Cove that you or I have but they have a question and this is the place to get an answer. All Andre's questions have been in this thread and whenever he has been asked he has given the information requested (or responded to a scenario presented as with my post). If we are the 'experts' and so good at understanding ISO 9001 we should be able to ask the right questions until we have sufficient information to base a decision on (kind of like an audit really).

Andre isn't here to answer his own question!

You have made some conclusions from incomplete information and they may not be accurate conclusions.

... and of course your conflicting conclusions are somehow accurate?

 

[Richard Pike]

... and of course your conflicting conclusions are somehow accurate?

So much of tangent: And (forgive me Jane) so much reliance on damn auditor / Cert Body.

Basics are -- I will justify why I am not Design Responsible -- The Auditor will agree or disagree with my justification / then I will decide whether to challenge that decision via the correct channels.

What is required here (to help the OP) is Justification for (or against) and with the limited knowledge of the situation and such justification is - at best - based on supposition.

We have all come with various scenarios- all without the facts.

So How about
A summary of the existing situation & a list of further information required - then and only then can we show the OP that we are not just HOT AIR and actually do know what we are doing !

 

[Big Jim]

OK. Please take advantage of this second opportunity and explain to me how selection of catalogue items and reconfiguring them constitutes design.

Perhaps we should define "design". For that, lets look at ISO 9000.

3.4.4 design and development
set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into specification of product, process, or system.

By this definition, your example is clearly design. Customer requirements are transformed into specification of product.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Your attempt to create an example of very light transformation does not move it out of that arena.

I appreciate your desire to aid the OP, that's the purpose of all of us here. It is also a responsibility to speak up when it is observed that there are inaccuracies.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Perhaps we should define "design". For that, lets look at ISO 9000.

3.4.4 design and development
set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into specification of product, process, or system.

I'm happy to work with the ISO definition. My problem is with your interpretation ....

By this definition, your example is clearly design. Customer requirements are transformed into specification of product.

So you consider a 'shopping list' of items is a specification? Unless there is some original output then IMHO no specification has been defined.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Your attempt to create an example of very light transformation does not move it out of that arena.

I haven't tried to 'create' anything. I am giving a real world example from my experience of applications engineering. You are clear it is design and I am clear it is not. We have an impasse.

I appreciate your desire to aid the OP, that's the purpose of all of us here. It is also a responsibility to speak up when it is observed that there are inaccuracies.

In your first post on this thread, the second response to the OP - here. You didn't ask but gave your judgement and in post 11 (here) you accused him of trying to find a way around the requirements. At least in my first post I asked for information and gave a scenario (as linked before).

I cannot be bothered to debate this further with you. As in previous discussions with you I don't find the level of debate acceptable or helpful.

 

[Big Jim]

So you consider a 'shopping list' of items is a specification? Unless there is some original output then IMHO no specification has been defined.

It is not the "shopping list" that is at issue. It is the transforming of requirements into characteristics that is at issue.

No matter how you try to marginalize it, this is still design.

 

[Richard Pike]

Beg to differ -- it does get seriously more difficult than that. And this has nothing to do with if we are design responsible

"3.4.4 design and development
set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into specification of product, process, or system."

That infers that if we design the process -- we are design responsible which of course is completely untrue

UNLESS we are an organization that "designs processes" as their prime business. - or not - i.e who designs the design process.

Its all a lot of nonsense -- I will state if I am not design - and provide my justification. -- some auditor ( of which i am one) will not tell me what my core business (or part of it) is. !!

 

[Big Jim]

Beg to differ -- it does get seriously more difficult than that. And this has nothing to do with if we are design responsible

"3.4.4 design and development
set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into specification of product, process, or system."

That infers that if we design the process -- we are design responsible which of course is completely untrue

UNLESS we are an organization that "designs processes" as their prime business. - or not - i.e who designs the design process.

Its all a lot of nonsense -- I will state if I am not design - and provide my justification. -- some auditor ( of which i am one) will not tell me what my core business (or part of it) is. !!

But your certification body can and will.

 

[Paul Simpson]

But your certification body can and will.

OK. I said I wouldn't get dragged into the 'It is design ... No it isn't' infantile debate ... and I'm not.

But just in support of Richard there are some intelligent people out there who are trying to understand quality in an organizational environment and are quite prepared to explain their thinking to an externel auditor.

... and hey if their certification body says different, guess what? ... they get a more reasonable CB!