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.

 

[Alan Cotterell]

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

 

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:33:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Design: Widgit vs. Service /../Naish/Humphries/Naish

From: PNaish

Edwin,

Sorry if you took the response personally. I had originally thought of putting some examples from past experience but remembered the email about keeping it short. But I will risk that for examples at this time. I had a client who did work for a company who sold to one of the big three. They were being pushed to go QS. The irony was the big three company would not give them the criteria for critical dimensions nor the expected Cpk they were to measure. And it was not the middle company that was the problem because one of their engineers had left the middle company and gone to my client. In addition neither the middle company nor the big three company would provide workmanship criteria and yet they would not accept the criteria that was an industry accepted standard for that industry (plastics injection molding). They would arbitrarily decide they did not like the looks of it. We finally had to sit down and start having meetings to get the criteria established and then both agree to use it.

Another more current example is a client in Texas (cable assembly). They have QS clients also. They are currently experiencing the same problems with a company that sells to two of the big three. They do not get acceptance criteria in advance. So they have started monthly and in the early implementation stages weekly "design criteria" meeting with the customers to get what they need.

Too bad these companies can not rely on their QS9001 customers to do what they are asking of the supplier!!!!

Phyllis

 

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:08:24 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Design: Widgit vs. Service /../Humphries/Naish/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries

Phyllis

> From: PNaish
>
> I find it interesting that some people can see how the standard pertains to
> others but never to themselves. A shortsidedness that seems to prevail in
> some mind sets that force quality systems on their suppliers but can't
> manage them for their own business.

While sometimes I may disagree with you, I don't think I've ever been condescending. Let me assure you, my shortsidedness is entirely physical, and I have forced quality on nobody. Ever.

I have, in fact, struggled on behalf of my clients to make quality relevant, effective and simple, without being simplistic.

> As a service provider we do have design. We have some standard off the
> shelf designs that is standard training packages that we consistently
> review at least once a quarter to determine if they can be improved using
> feedback from our clients.

As a (hypothetical) manufacturer, I may also have a process, and this process must be designed. I do not, however, choose to gain ISO certification for the design of my process. I also have (regardless of my industry) a management system, which also must be designed; however, I do not choose to become certified to develop my own management system.

It is therefore not simply having a design component in what I do that determines whether I have ISO9001 or 9002 certification. Let's look at what ISO says about the applicability of 9001:

* "ISO9001-1994 should be selected and used when the need is to demonstrate the supplier's capability to control the processes for design as well as production of conforming product. ... ISO9001-1994: for use when conformance to specified requirements is to be assured by the supplier during design, development, production, installation, and servicing." (ISO9000.1)

* This International Standard specifies quality-system requirements for use where a supplier's capability to design and supply conforming product needs to be demonstrated. (ISO9001)

There are two issues clearly identified:

1. Is there a product? Products are defines as "commodities offered for sale; the amount of an artifact that has been produced by someone or some process." I don't consider what I, personally, offer as either a commodity or an artifact.

2. More importantly, is there is a need to demonstrate control over the design process? For most service companies, the clear answer is a resounding NO. The agonising is almost invariably internal to the organisation itself, and few clients are concerned. In fact, I would suggest that most clients, whether having a repair done on their car or seeking someone's assistance with a business plan, would consider there to be any design in the activity at all.

> 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.

I'm happy for you, but are you sure you do all of the following:

* Design and development planning?
* Organizational and technical interfaces?
* Design input?
* Design output?
* Design review?
* Design verification?
* Design validation?
* Design changes?

Personally, I doubt it.

For most service companies, interpretation of ISO 9000 is quite a challenge, as it wasn't written with them in mind. Most of the people I hear suggesting that Design Control has strong relevance to a service industry are either consultants or certifiers/registrars. That would seem more than a little self serving.

Let's not make things even more difficult for service companies than they already are, by forcing most of them as a square peg into the round hole of Design Control.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries