ISO 9001 Clause 7.5.5 Preservation of Product - Apply or exclude?

[somashekar]

I don't know the answer, but I would think that 7.5.5 does apply if you think in terms of the quality or characteristics of the electrical power provided. I would think that you would be obligated to do your part to ensure "clean" power, rather than power that has wide fluctuations in quality. Are you doing your part to ensure the power received is what you generated?

Hi Jim.
This aspect of quality or characteristics of the electrical power provided more fits into the 8.2.4 (The Monitoring and measurement of product)
Request to know how you link the 7.5.5 requirement to preservation activity.

 

[20110403a]

my CB auditor just completed our company re-certification iso 9001 two months ago, he issued a NC to me on 7.5.5, because one of my department request another department to do a design for our product unit box. however, the final output design box is miss out one word and no one detected this issue.

the auditor charge this issue into 7.5.5, firstly, i do not really understand why he charge on this clause, after i read careful the requirement, then i understood.

refer to clause 7.5.5, "the organization shall preserve the product during internal processing and delivery to the intended destination in order to maintain conformity to requirements. ....... Preservation shall also apply to the constituent parts of a product."

the product here refer to real product and service, even a service organization also provide output to customer, as long as during the service delivery stage, the auditor found any issue, they able to charge in this requirement.

example, the report you provide to customer is found mistake.

 

[Big Jim]

Hi Jim.
This aspect of quality or characteristics of the electrical power provided more fits into the 8.2.4 (The Monitoring and measurement of product)
Request to know how you link the 7.5.5 requirement to preservation activity.

Re-read my post. Emphasis added this time.

I would think that you would be obligated to do your part to ensure "clean" power, rather than power that has wide fluctuations in quality. Are you doing your part to ensure the power received is what you generated?

 

[Jim Wynne]

In section 3 of ISO 9001:2008 we find this: "Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term 'product' occurs, it can also mean 'service'."
Therein lies the problem: our TC176 friends failed (imo) in not understanding that there are, for the purposes of the general requirements, significant distinctions between palpable products and services for which no palpable product exists. You can't just say that "product" and "service" are synonymous and let it go at that, as this thread attests.

It seems to me that "preservation of product" should rightly be construed to apply to palpable things--protecting product from conditions and acts that will cause deterioration or some form of nonconformity. To say that services must be preserved or protected in the same manner as palpable things is, I think, an error caused by a fault in the standard.

In the present case, if 7.5.5 didn't exist, there would still be a requirement for the service provider to provide conforming services, so it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever if the clause were excluded. It's a different story with palpable products, where storage, identification, protection from damage, etc. are important considerations.

 

[AndyN]

my CB auditor just completed our company re-certification iso 9001 two months ago, he issued a NC to me on 7.5.5, because one of my department request another department to do a design for our product unit box. however, the final output design box is miss out one word and no one detected this issue.

the auditor charge this issue into 7.5.5, firstly, i do not really understand why he charge on this clause, after i read careful the requirement, then i understood.

refer to clause 7.5.5, "the organization shall preserve the product during internal processing and delivery to the intended destination in order to maintain conformity to requirements. ....... Preservation shall also apply to the constituent parts of a product."

the product here refer to real product and service, even a service organization also provide output to customer, as long as during the service delivery stage, the auditor found any issue, they able to charge in this requirement.

example, the report you provide to customer is found mistake.

It sounds to me as if the auditor was grasping at straws...

 

[Big Jim]

In section 3 of ISO 9001:2008 we find this: "Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term 'product' occurs, it can also mean 'service'."
Therein lies the problem: our TC176 friends failed (imo) in not understanding that there are, for the purposes of the general requirements, significant distinctions between palpable products and services for which no palpable product exists. You can't just say that "product" and "service" are synonymous and let it go at that, as this thread attests.

It seems to me that "preservation of product" should rightly be construed to apply to palpable things--protecting product from conditions and acts that will cause deterioration or some form of nonconformity. To say that services must be preserved or protected in the same manner as palpable things is, I think, an error caused by a fault in the standard.

In the present case, if 7.5.5 didn't exist, there would still be a requirement for the service provider to provide conforming services, so it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever if the clause were excluded. It's a different story with palpable products, where storage, identification, protection from damage, etc. are important considerations.

Interesting point, and I agree that TC176 provided a half baked concept with their explanation of the interchangability of "product" and "service".

I'm not so certain that is what is going on here. Is electricity a "product", or is it a "service"? I view it as a product. I also view that they are responsible for doing their part on ensuring the power generated is what is delivered.

Admititly, the determination of if electricity is a product or a service may be debatable and I'm not claiming my perspective is the only one or even the best one.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Interesting point, and I agree that TC176 provided a half baked concept with their explanation of the interchangability of "product" and "service".

I'm not so certain that is what is going on here. Is electricity a "product", or is it a "service"? I view it as a product. I also view that they are responsible for doing their part on ensuring the power generated is what is delivered.

Admititly, the determination of if electricity is a product or a service may be debatable and I'm not claiming my perspective is the only one or even the best one.

I don't think it makes any difference whether it's a product or a service. I think it could be considered both. The question is whether or not it needs to be "preserved" in the same sense that something made of steel needs to be protected from corrosion, or a vat of liquid needs to be protected from contamination. Surely the supply and quality of the delivered electricity is a matter of contractual agreement, so what does applying 7.5.5 accomplish?

 

[Big Jim]

I don't think it makes any difference whether it's a product or a service. I think it could be considered both. The question is whether or not it needs to be "preserved" in the same sense that something made of steel needs to be protected from corrosion, or a vat of liquid needs to be protected from contamination. Surely the supply and quality of the delivered electricity is a matter of contractual agreement, so what does applying 7.5.5 accomplish?

That would be a question better answered by someone that knows the power industry better than me.

I do know, from experience working for a company that made computerized test equipment, from a time that included more primitive signal conditioning on the equipment than today, dirty power was a huge issue. As to if the fault of the dirty power was the power company (and I know it can be), the transmission (which is often controlled by the power company), or the building wiring after the power was delivered to the company I cannot fully answer. Confirming clean power was a necessary part of a successful installation, and installation could not be completed until it was confirmed. When dirty power was found, I was not usually involved with or informed of the resolution.

So from that experience, preservation of electrical power would seem to be a possible concern for a power company.

 

[Jim Wynne]

That would be a question better answered by someone that knows the power industry better than me.

I do know, from experience working for a company that made computerized test equipment, from a time that included more primitive signal conditioning on the equipment than today, dirty power was a huge issue. As to if the fault of the dirty power was the power company (and I know it can be), the transmission (which is often controlled by the power company), or the building wiring after the power was delivered to the company I cannot fully answer. Confirming clean power was a necessary part of a successful installation, and installation could not be completed until it was confirmed. When dirty power was found, I was not usually involved with or informed of the resolution.

So from that experience, preservation of electrical power would seem to be a possible concern for a power company.

We all know that in the automotive industry (for example) production quantities of parts may not be shipped until everything has been approved via PPAP, so the fact that some commodity must be in a salable state prior to going on line isn't unique to energy providers. I still say that "preservation" and "preserved" are being misused because of a misbegotten desire to comply with the standard. Provision of of service in accordance with contractual requirements (what you refer to here as "preservation of electrical power") obviates the need to invoke 7.5.5.

 

[Big Jim]

We all know that in the automotive industry (for example) production quantities of parts may not be shipped until everything has been approved via PPAP, so the fact that some commodity must be in a salable state prior to going on line isn't unique to energy providers. I still say that "preservation" and "preserved" are being misused because of a misbegotten desire to comply with the standard. Provision of of service in accordance with contractual requirements (what you refer to here as "preservation of electrical power") obviates the need to invoke 7.5.5.

I see your perspective, and largly agree with it. I also feel that there is awkwardness over the fact that TS176 did not bother to provide better insight about just how product = service.

In this case, I don't know the answer, but I do see electrical power as a product and not a service.

If, and I'll agree it is an if, 7.5.5 does apply to an electrical company, preserving the quality of the power would be a way for it to apply. I don't see a difference in how it applies here compared with other utilities, such as gas or water. Quality of both of them could be degraded after production before arrival for use.

The best answer for the OP, would be to talk to his certification body.

As for Jim & I, on this topic, it looks like it would be best for us to agree that we don't quite agree. This would be a rare event, as I agree with most things Jim posts.