Re: Product Realisation in 'Training' - 7.3 Design And Development Exemptions
Hello amit_rd:
3.4.2 does not clearly prescribe what the product is of any organization. 3.4.2 provides the definition of the term “product” which then must be applied by the organization.
Fun and traveling of the car is certainly an aspect of the product that matters. Car manufactures definitely care about more than just 4 wheels, a steering wheel and forward motion. Leather interior, infotainement, color choices and different engine sizes are all aspects of the “fun” factor of the product.
To disregard the customer perception of the product might be a fatal flaw for any organization. This relates to the intent of 8.2.1 of ISO 9001.
Service organizations almost exclusively have to rely on customer perception to determine the effectiveness of their product since the product is an experience. There is nothing tangible like an automobile.
To disregard the effectiveness (i.e. fun of the car) of the product reminds me of one a classic criticism of ISO 9001:1994. People used to say that an organization could produce cement life preservers as long as the produced what they said they would produce. The fun factor or enjoyment of the product or effectiveness of the product didn’t matter.
This is one of the major reasons for the restructure of ISO 9001:2000.
Also, if effectiveness of the training doesn’t matter, and the learning attained by the customer doesn’t matter, then why does ISO 9001 require an evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken to ensure competency? ISO 9001 requires this but a training organization should not consider the effectiveness of their product as an aspect of their product?
The product of a training organization is only the action of the training, tools, brochures, hand outs? The definition of their “product” excludes the learning; the effectiveness of the training?
What is the product of a hospital? The building, the processes, the tools and not some measurable or monitor-able change in health or well being?
Kilometers of water consumed in a day: I can’t think of anything that is measured in distance that does not also have some other assumptions of characteristics like width, depth, material type. In fact, I can’t think of any tangible material that only has one dimension of length. Board foot of wood assumes the type of wood and the width and depth. Length of wire includes the type of wire.
In anything measured or observed, there are assumptions made. Often those assumptions are not overtly stated. In almost all “facts”, there are assumptions that allow the statement to be “fact.” Even in highly controlled physical sciences, assumption are made and stated for a condition to be valid.
I can measure amount of water consumed in kilometers. This model to measure the amount of water consumed may not be useful, but it can be done. Just because it may not be the most useful model for measurement does not mean the model is wrong.
To state that something is wrong; to approach a model or idea as black or white/ zero or one / yes or no / true or false / may not be the most useful model either.
I am not trying to make things more complicated. If the original poster wants to exclude learning in the definition of their product, that is their choice. Survival of an organization is optional.
Okay, let’s get away from thinking and improvement and get back to simple compliance for the sake of a certificate.
