Should every Management System include Design?

[Pristinapete]

Hi to all,

My first forum post. I came on the forum to see if I could get any pointers regarding including design within our QMS but it would seem the issue is fairly open to interpretation and dependant on the business.

Take a facilities management company (such as the one i work for). Any invitation to tender we receive already specifies the product required. Do we then have to design the product? Not in my opinion. We take the invitation to tender (let's say the O&M of a gymnasium). The product has already been determined by the customer therefore what we do in creating an O&M package is covered by 7.1 and 7.2. in that we are realizing the product as requested by the customer. By including design we are only duplicating what occurs under these sections.

I think it is wrong to assume or infer that the development clause should be followed with regard to future development of product, if you look at the context within the standard. Given that the standard follows a natural progression through Section 7, develop should be considered in the transitive = to create and not the intransitive = to change with a specific direction (which, to me, is improvement).

My opinion is that Section 7.3 is probably more appropriate for companies who have an R&D department or division, which is probably why it has been included within the standard.

A better definition in the standard would be Innovation and Development (innovation = a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation). Why design something that already exists?

But better not add any more words that can be misinterpreted. Stating that, throughout the standard, product can also mean service causes enough head-scratching, especially when it comes to design and development

Best to all,

Pete

 

[JaneB]

Jane,

I cannot imagine why any manufacturer would deliver commodities (bought on price alone) by ignoring the design of their services.

So, since the beginning, I've advocated design of the whole product (goods and services).

Which part of the products that comprise goods and services are you saying should not be designed?

John

I think this is responding or "answering" with another question.

 

[John Broomfield]

Hi to all,

My first forum post. I came on the forum to see if I could get any pointers regarding including design within our QMS but it would seem the issue is fairly open to interpretation and dependant on the business.

Take a facilities management company (such as the one i work for). Any invitation to tender we receive already specifies the product required. Do we then have to design the product? Not in my opinion. We take the invitation to tender (let's say the O&M of a gymnasium). The product has already been determined by the customer therefore what we do in creating an O&M package is covered by 7.1 and 7.2. in that we are realizing the product as requested by the customer. By including design we are only duplicating what occurs under these sections.

I think it is wrong to assume or infer that the development clause should be followed with regard to future development of product, if you look at the context within the standard. Given that the standard follows a natural progression through Section 7, develop should be considered in the transitive = to create and not the intransitive = to change with a specific direction (which, to me, is improvement).

My opinion is that Section 7.3 is probably more appropriate for companies who have an R&D department or division, which is probably why it has been included within the standard.

A better definition in the standard would be Innovation and Development (innovation = a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation). Why design something that already exists?

But better not add any more words that can be misinterpreted. Stating that, throughout the standard, product can also mean service causes enough head-scratching, especially when it comes to design and development

Best to all,

Pete

Pete,

I agree, it would appear the your O&M services are designed for you by your customers.

Surely the expert in state-of-the-art O&M services is not your customers but your company?

And you probably give your potential customers the benefit of your O&M services design expertise when reviewing the requirements of prospective contracts.

Indeed, instead of waiting for RFPs and RFQs to appear in your In Box, your sales team probably advises customers on how to specify O&M services.

For example, you would advise a customer to specify prevention and monitoring for legionella when they should. In so doing you are translating the customer's needs into product requirements. This is design.

Excluding design of your services from the certification is understandable but this does not mean to me that your O&M services company does no design.

Even if your management system does not include O&M services design (and design change control) surely your recruiting process cannot afford to reject applicants who have the expertise to design and continually improve O&M services?

Waiting to be told what to deliver by customers (or making the customer the expert) limits the value any organization can add for the benefit of current and future customers.

To guard against this your O&M company probably has O&M service experts constantly researching and developing new services and ways to improve the existing services (not as a department but as a process).

On second thoughts, liability insurance may be holding some companies back as often I am told that policy limits are the reason for refusing to admit to any design activity. Proper insurance is essential for risk management so design would have to be valued enough by the owners/top managers to upgrade the insurance to include design liability.

Insurance may be the biggest roadbloack to admitting any product design.

And as you can tell, I see design (includes innovation) as essential to the prosperity of any company.

John

 

[Bill Pflanz]

Jane,

I cannot imagine why any manufacturer would deliver commodities (bought on price alone) by ignoring the design of their services.

So, since the beginning, I've advocated design of the whole product (goods and services).

Which part of the products that comprise goods and services are you saying should not be designed?

John

I worked in the chemical industry where we only made commodity chemicals. When the registrar questioned us about design, we said we did not do design and would include it if we ever did. Any registrar is free to find objective evidence of design but I think companies know when design is being done per the definition of the standards and their own company practices.

I see nothing in the standards that would suggest services are included. It may be possible to encounter a product in which a special service would be designed but it is more likely that you are just providing services that are part of the process and not a design. Under your scenario, the creation of any process that involves servicing the customer would be a design. In my opinion, that exceeds the intent of the standard.


Bill Pflanz

 

[Pristinapete]

Thanks for your views John but I have to disagree. It would be quite a stretch of the imagination to say we "design" O&M. Operations and Maintenance is already a known discipline so to say we design it would be a little arrogant. Given that the Company works within a military environment there is little opportunity for "cold calling". A request/invitation is issued and acted upon. The parameters have already been defined. We realize the customer's needs, we don't invent them. We take the principles of O&M and tailor them to the needs of the customer.

We would advise a customer on Legionella control and monitoring purely because we are duty bound to do so as we are obliged to "determine statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the product"; a customer related process, not design.

Taking an earlier analogy that you used in a linked thread of a supply company designing a new route. I find it hard to see how you would do that. You may add a new route (an improvement to your level of service) but in saying you design it would imply that you would actually build the road.

I see no added value in including design as a core process in our business. Design inputs are determined by the customer; not all design outputs can be verified against inputs (product acceptance criteria being one as contracts can be accepted on cost, cost compliant or value for money); therefore design verification cannot be achieved; and validation of product will always take place after delivery. As the product is a continuing service it is constantly being validated as a post delivery activity.

As a service provider working in Afghanistan I can assure you that design is not essential to the prosperity of our company (therefore not any as you imply). Customer satisfaction and past performance are what win contracts for us. And we achieve these through realizing a product to meet the designs of the customer.

As the standard says, application is dependent on the "nature of an organisation and its product" so in the end we are all dictated to by circumstance,

Regards,

Pete

 

[John Broomfield]

I worked in the chemical industry where we only made commodity chemicals. When the registrar questioned us about design, we said we did not do design and would include it if we ever did. Any registrar is free to find objective evidence of design but I think companies know when design is being done per the definition of the standards and their own company practices.

I see nothing in the standards that would suggest services are included. It may be possible to encounter a product in which a special service would be designed but it is more likely that you are just providing services that are part of the process and not a design. Under your scenario, the creation of any process that involves servicing the customer would be a design. In my opinion, that exceeds the intent of the standard.


Bill Pflanz

Bill,

Many thanks for your perspective. I agree that many chemicals are bought and sold as chemicals and that registrars agree to exclude clause 7.3 from the certification of such systems.

However, when choosing a supplier, I imagine your loyal customers will value most the service-part of your product.

Indeed, if you re-examine your supplier selection criteria I'll bet one or two of the selection criteria are about standards of service. This shows how important the service-part of any product is to customers; even if the products are mainly goods.

I am referring to the defiinition of product in ISO 9001's normative standard ISO 9000:2005.

Goods with no services are indeed commodities bought on price alone and in such cases the opportunity to deliver more value to the customer is lost.

John

 

[Bill Pflanz]

Bill,

Goods with no services are indeed commodities bought on price alone and in such cases the opportunity to deliver more value to the customer is lost.

John

Commodities do have services - order filling, delivery, billing, etc. they just do not meet the requirement for design. It is too much of a stretch to think that the design standard applies to services that are a necessary and regular part of having a business. I would challenge a registrar who wants to include services as part of the design standard unless they can specifically show how it applies.

Bill

 

[AndyN]

A key issue in this debate seems to me to be what the customer thinks! I, for one, sometimes don't want the supplier to offer me more than I expressly want! Now, if I'm in a high class restaurant and I can't decide, it's often nice to have some suggestions or for a wine to go with the food. If I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want some pimply faced kid asking me 'Do you want a coke with that?"

 

[Stijloor]

<snip>Now, if I'm in a high class restaurant and I can't decide, it's often nice to have some suggestions or for a wine to go with the food. If I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want some pimply faced kid asking me 'Do you want a coke with that?"

Mrs. Murphy: Y'all want anything to drink with that?
Elwood: No ma'am.
Jake: A Coke.
Mrs. Murphy: Be up in a minute

 

[AndyN]

Mrs. Murphy: Y'all want anything to drink with that?
Elwood: No ma'am.
Jake: A Coke.
Mrs. Murphy: Be up in a minute

Now, Jan, I know that's not a Dutch joke, so maybe I'm just being thick...(Blues Brothers?)