Should every Management System include Design?

[Paul Simpson]

Boris,

I agree with you on the possibly value of 7.3 for process design but here we have been talking about design of the whole product.

OK. I don't pretend to have reviewed the whole thread but it seemed to me that there was a fair bit of discussion on application of 7.3 to process design and I thought this was internal processes as well as customer facing processes. If I misrepresented the thread then I apologize.

The point remains that even the customer facing processes don't need to be designed (7.3) if they are effectively planned (7.1) and controlled (7.5.1).

A fire suppressant system will have to be designed if the "engineer" is to manage the risk. One of the components (a pump perhaps) may need upgrading for the system to work.

No design and no evidence of design validation may stop the facility from being insured.

John

The example I gave was of fire detection but I believe the same principle applies to fire suppressant systems. The designer selects from a list of components to meet a list of requirements. Generally there is no original thought / design involved. So taking your example based on the system load - flow rate and total volume the 'designer' will pick the pump from a range and specify it in the system specification.

There is hardly anything original in any design in the areas where the ISO 9001 is applied. Information derived from previous similar designs form a major input, and this is not necessarly to be your own previous similar design.
Get what I mean ... Toyota strips Honda and vice versa >>> or for that matter in every other field.

You misunderstand me.

I take your point that all the automotive OEMs are looking at what each other is doing and the final products look quite similar but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of design work going into getting individual model or that original design hasn't taken place. Each design team has a specification they are working towards meeting and are constantly balancing the needs for cost, performance, low weight and simplicity to manufacture. Not every aspect of a vehicle is new and original but there is a lot that is.

 

[Mikelangelo]

The example I gave was of fire detection but I believe the same principle applies to fire suppressant systems. The designer selects from a list of components to meet a list of requirements. Generally there is no original thought / design involved. So taking your example based on the system load - flow rate and total volume the 'designer' will pick the pump from a range and specify it in the system specification.

I agree, if the customer gives all these details and the engineer only piscks the pump.

However, what if the customer gives only the details of the area and volume of the computer room that needs protection by a fire supression system?

I assume then that the engineer will have to do the work, disigning a specific system for that particular room. (extinguishing media, calculations to determine, loss from openings, flow rate, size of orifice, number and placement of nozzles, total amount of media needed, number of cylinders, valves, hoses, size and length of pipes etc, etc).

 

[Jim Wynne]

<Much snippage> Let us not leave parts of our product undesigned by anyone.

We are talking past one another. You have yet to demonstrate how excluding the product design requirements of the standard means that sundry other things won't be properly "designed" and controlled, given all of the other requirements of the standard that bear on that.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I agree, if the customer gives all these details and the engineer only piscks the pump.

However, what if the customer gives only the details of the area and volume of the computer room that needs protection by a fire supression system?

I assume then that the engineer will have to do the work, disigning a specific system for that particular room. (extinguishing media, calculations to determine, loss from openings, flow rate, size of orifice, number and placement of nozzles, total amount of media needed, number of cylinders, valves, hoses, size and length of pipes etc, etc).

OK we are approaching the limits of my knowledge of fire supressant systems but again no. Most people installing fire supressant systems just need to know the details I mentioned and then pick the other items from a catalogue based on following an established code of practice.

Rocket science it ain't.

 

[John Broomfield]

OK. I don't pretend to have reviewed the whole thread but it seemed to me that there was a fair bit of discussion on application of 7.3 to process design and I thought this was internal processes as well as customer facing processes. If I misrepresented the thread then I apologize.

The point remains that even the customer facing processes don't need to be designed (7.3) if they are effectively planned (7.1) and controlled (7.5.1).

The example I gave was of fire detection but I believe the same principle applies to fire suppressant systems. The designer selects from a list of components to meet a list of requirements. Generally there is no original thought / design involved. So taking your example based on the system load - flow rate and total volume the 'designer' will pick the pump from a range and specify it in the system specification.

Boris and Jim,

Thanks for your polite and reasonable responses.

We may usefully design customer facing processes but that is not what I am advocating here.

As both goods and services may be the intended product I am saying the both should also be designed. This is especially so if services are the most competitive (or problematic) part of your product even though the customer provides the design of the goods. All this means is that you would be creating, using and improving service specifications to assure and improve service quality. Your management system would include a service design process.

Yes I admit changing my answer from fire (smoke?) detection system to fire suppressant system to make clearer the need for design of the system.

If either system is pulled together according to a list or table that table will be design output from the manufacturer of the components of either system. The system may not need redesign unless the circumstances of its use are unusual (out of scope). The engineer therefore would review the design and compare it with the actual circumstances of use. If the system's application is within the scope of the table then no further design would be required.

Usually though in these situations the manufacturer manages installment risk by advising or requiring that the system be commissioned (thereby validating the design for this purpose) before the relevant authority permits occupancy or use.

John

 

[Mikelangelo]

OK we are approaching the limits of my knowledge of fire supressant systems but again no. Most people installing fire supressant systems just need to know the details I mentioned and then pick the other items from a catalogue based on following an established code of practice.

Rocket science it ain't.

Boris

I agree, it ain't rocket science

I apologize, I know I am repetitive and slow learner, however I need to understand your point.

If it is not a product related design, the 7.3 should be excluded ?

If "no" In what other type of design the 7.3 shoud be included?


Mike

 

[Paul Simpson]

If it is not a product related design, the 7.3 should be excluded ?

OK. In my view this is not design (and hence covered by clause 7.3. It is covered by customer related processes (7.2) and product and service provision (7.5). But bear in mind this is my opinion based on information supplied. Others don't agree with me!

If "no" In what other type of design the 7.3 shoud be included?


Mike

Wherever a client comes to you with a vague set of requirements that requires you to go away, develop an original solution and come back with a proposal that satisfies their requirements then clause 7.3 applies.

 

[somashekar]

As both goods and services may be the intended product I am saying the both should also be designed. This is especially so if services are the most competitive (or problematic) part of your product even though the customer provides the design of the goods. All this means is that you would be creating, using and improving service specifications to assure and improve service quality. Your management system would include a service design process.

Dear John.
Let me try to tell what I understand from my product viewpoint. My product is a medical device and I agree that service of this in my business is crucial as the market demands a very good support and effective aftersales service and round the clock. In the design phase the serviceability part has been considered as a main input and all the crucial service aspects are taken and the device is designed as a modular product. This supports easy and fast service (pull out and plug in new module) and the software error codes are also such that they indicate which module is faulty. We have prepared service manual for the product and it is so done that this can effectively me handed over to a third party / dealer with a easy 'how to service' training. The faulty modules do finally reach our main service centre for analysis and feedback to design and manufacturing.
Is this what you are stressing upon ? or am I missing something ... ?

 

[John Broomfield]

Dear John.
Let me try to tell what I understand from my product viewpoint. My product is a medical device and I agree that service of this in my business is crucial as the market demands a very good support and effective aftersales service and round the clock. In the design phase the serviceability part has been considered as a main input and all the crucial service aspects are taken and the device is designed as a modular product. This supports easy and fast service (pull out and plug in new module) and the software error codes are also such that they indicate which module is faulty. We have prepared service manual for the product and it is so done that this can effectively me handed over to a third party / dealer with a easy 'how to service' training. The faulty modules do finally reach our main service centre for analysis and feedback to design and manufacturing.
Is this what you are stressing upon ? or am I missing something ... ?

Somashekar,

Yes, your services are critical to the successful use of your medical devices.

Therefore you may have a need for specifications for:

1. User manuals (a good and a design output)
2. Sales and distribution to qualified users (a service)
3. Selecting the correct device w/limitations (a service)
4. Training users to they use your devices competently (a service)
5. Calibrating the device (a service if not part of 1 above)
6. Maintaining the device (a service if not part of 1 above)
7. Repairing the device (a service)
8. Recycling the device (a service)

All of these specifications would require the intellectual input of the design team.

As you say, by making sure the whole product is designed you are bringing the customer's problems into the design of the device itself. You have made a very powerful case for service design being part of product design.

Unfortunately, many organizations that are handed a set of specs and dwgs think they have no more design to do.

Have I missed any essential services that are part of your product?

John

 

[somashekar]

Therefore you may have a need for specifications for:

User manuals (a good and a design output) Is necessary and is a major design output
Sales and distribution to qualified users (a service) The product litrature and single sheet product catalog is a major design output
Selecting the correct device w/limitations (a service) The above helps + marketing training
Training users to they use your devices competently (a service) User manual helps and so do the marketing / dealer who are trained
Calibrating the device (a service if not part of 1 above) Factory set and marketing / dealer are trained and resource provided
Maintaining the device (a service if not part of 1 above) User manual has details
Repairing the device (a service) Service manual with sales / dealer
Recycling the device (a service) Is considered as WEEE and where regulations require this procedure is with the sales / dealer

You have covered all of them and all these are essential requirements within the 7.3. While I refer to it as design, perhaps you are calling it as service design.