What is Product realization??

[vanputten]

Hello Peter:

Awesome post! Using the definition of "product" does make "product realization" even more confusing. Thinking of product realization in relationship to internal customers makes my brain hurt.

You make some very intersting points. Unfortunatley, since ISO 9001 is used world wide, the ease of translation must be considered.

I wish had some feedback that would help. I appreaciate your thoughts. We approach Product Realiztion as the creation and provision of goods and services for external, paying customers. For my organization, Product Realization is the creation of what we sell to external customers.

Sections 4.1 and 7.1 are purposely congruent. 4.1 was suppose to apply to the entire organization. 7.1 takes the same concepts from 4.1 and applies them to product (sell-able product). Section 7 are product related requirements. But when we define "product" as the result of a process, it does get confusing.

I'll keep thinking and searching for supporting information.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten

 

[Jim Howe]

Perhaps we have stumpled upon one of the reasons corporate management in America seems to have lost interest in ISO9000. At least some of the recent postings that I have read indicate that they have.

We seem to choose terms that are strange or use the foreign language term in order to impress management with our intelligence. I don't think its working!

In a recent meeting on implementing Lean the Japanese terms thrown around the room was enough to make anyone gag!

I recall an interview with a very famous Miami Dolphins football coach, a few years back, who (when asked about his new wide receivers ability) commented

"that guy can "verticalize" better than any other man I ever coached".​

Of course he meant that man could jump!
God help us!

 

[Ingeniero1]

Why let such a simple question generate so many convoluted answers, whether well intended?

What is wrong with simply saying that 'product realization' = 'production'?

Then, after the person becomes familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the terminology, let him/her figure out whether the quick definition needs further refinement for each specific case.

Alex

 

[RoxaneB]

"Product realization" is the process(es) that result in the product. In other words, what do you need (inputs) in order to end up with a product/service (output) that satisfies all interested parties (be it an internal Customer, external Customer, paying Customer...doesn't matter).

Think of the clauses within '7 Product realization' as your core or direct processes. Everything else is a support process to product realization.

1. 7.1 Planning of product realization - Can you do it? Can you provide the product/service and prove that requirements and wants have been met?
2. 7.2 Customer-related processes - Customers need to buy/want it so that you know who to provide the product/service to.
3. 7.3 Design and development - Some products/services have unique features which require design, testing, etc.
4. 7.4 Purchasing - You'll most likely need to buy things so that you can produce your product/service.
5. 7.5 Production and service provision - Making the product/service and tracking the key aspects of making it.
6. 7.6 Control of monitoring and measuring devices - Keeping control of the items which verify that your product/service honestly does meet the requirements.

Now for some organizations, these clauses impact more than just one department and/or process. Mine for example, lists the core processes involved in Product Realization (keeping in mind we are design exempt).

Which processes, Yugender, are directly involved in your call centres ability to keep your interested parties happy?

 

[Peter Fraser]

Why let such a simple question generate so many convoluted answers, whether well intended?
Alex

Alex

It may be a simple question, but it is very important to the way in which an organisation inteprets the standard. And that may be one of the failings of the standard - ie the fact that people have to "interpret" it, rather than having a clear picture of how it relates to their own business because it uses terms that everyone can relate to.

Perhaps your question should be "Why use the term in the standard in the first place, if it causes such confusion for those of us for whom English is our first language, never mind those for whom it is not?" It just does not stack up with the definition of a "product".

I reckon that most folk have in practice interpreted it as you suggest below

What is wrong with simply saying that 'product realization' = 'production'?

What is wrong with that is the fact that "Production and Service Provision" is only a subset of section 7 (the fact that "Design and Development" produces the final output for customers of many organisations is another source of confusion).

And at the risk of giving Dirk even more to think about(!), how do you determine the "customer" of a police force, or of a hospital? What is the "product", and who receives it? Does the criminal receive a term in prison, or does society receive peace of mind? Does the patient receive treatment, or the local community a better return on its taxes for money spent to prevent the spread of disease?

How many police officers, doctors and nurses go to work to "realize products"?

 

[Peter Fraser]

"Product realization" is the process(es) that result in the product. In other words, what do you need (inputs) in order to end up with a product/service (output) that satisfies all interested parties (be it an internal Customer, external Customer, paying Customer...doesn't matter).

So, for example, a "trained member of staff" is the "product" of an internal training process. But that is not what the standard means - despite its own terminology. What is interesting, however, is that if you set out to manage (all) your processes in relation to the way they affect all parties (not just the external "customer") then you should make a better job of "managing (people, relationships, risk, resources, objectives ...)".

 

[RoxaneB]

So, for example, a "trained member of staff" is the "product" of an internal training process. But that is not what the standard means - despite its own terminology. What is interesting, however, is that if you set out to manage (all) your processes in relation to the way they affect all parties (not just the external "customer") then you should make a better job of "managing (people, relationships, risk, resources, objectives ...)".

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Peter. A trained member of staff is an output of the training process, yes. However, within my company trained staff is not our primary or core business. Training staff and ensuring that all personnel are qualified and competent is not part of our product realization. It is a support process to the processes that directly impact the product realization.

That is, however, for my company.

There may be service companies who's product is training. So, for them, a trained member of staff is part of the prodct realization process.

 

[Peter Fraser]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Peter. A trained member of staff is an output of the training process, yes. However, within my company trained staff is not our primary or core business. Training staff and ensuring that all personnel are qualified and competent is not part of our product realization. It is a support process to the processes that directly impact the product realization.

That is, however, for my company.

There may be service companies who's product is training. So, for them, a trained member of staff is part of the prodct realization process.

Roxane

I was using it as an example of how the definition of a "product" (ie "the result of a process") from ISO9000:2000, and the wording of ISO9001:2000, mean that the two documents are contradictory.

Say if you have a training department that trains staff from other departments of the company, and the training department is the only department which is certified to ISO9001:2000, then "training" is "product realisation". If the rest of the organisation later become certified, "training" then becomes a "support" process, and the requirements of the standard are different. I am not convinced that I see the sense in that - the training department will still be operating in exactly the same way as before. I do not believe that the concepts of process management are applied to all parts of a business in a uniform way by the standard.

The main point of confusion remains the word "product" and the different ways in which the word is used.

 

[qualitytrec]

Honestly, I think this discussion has become a little funny but I will play. To deal with the language of the standard, I say this. The language should be as clear and meaningful as possible. By this I do not mean that the language should be simple but rather precise. If the standard were precise I do not believe there would be near the interpretations needed, a good dictionary for sure but not interpretations. Also, as far as the translatability of the standard this is funny to me. Translation should never be a word for word transfer into the new language but the transfer of the thought from one language to the other in the clearest way possible. This is called a dynamic translation. The standard does use some inconsistent language in my opinion and this is a cause for great frustration for many of us. I can not even imagine what it would be like for someone who is trying to interpret a translation of it.
Just my thoughts,
Mark

 

[RoxaneB]

Roxane

I was using it as an example of how the definition of a "product" (ie "the result of a process") from ISO9000:2000, and the wording of ISO9001:2000, mean that the two documents are contradictory.

Say if you have a training department that trains staff from other departments of the company, and the training department is the only department which is certified to ISO9001:2000, then "training" is "product realisation". If the rest of the organisation later become certified, "training" then becomes a "support" process, and the requirements of the standard are different. I am not convinced that I see the sense in that - the training department will still be operating in exactly the same way as before. I do not believe that the concepts of process management are applied to all parts of a business in a uniform way by the standard.

The main point of confusion remains the word "product" and the different ways in which the word is used.

Okay...I'll try a different angle...

Product Realization can apply to any department or any process at any level. The aspects involved in Product Realization will, however, depend on the scope of your organization or unit.

Using your Training Department within a widget Manufacturing company, if only the Training Department was pursuing ISO 9001:2000, then yes, the training provided and the resulting trained personnel are the output of the product realization process. Why? Because we all agree that while ISO says "product", it means "product and service" and Product Realization applies to the product intended for the Customer (in this case, the Customer is the widget Manufacturing company).

If the entire widget Manufacturing company pursues and successfully attains ISO 9001:2000,then the primary Customer that we are all first to admit to is the one that pays us. Product Realization focuses on the provision processes - those core processes that ensure the product/service is produced.

But Product Realization impacts us all. We all have Customers. My entire facility is ISO 9001:2000 registered, but I am impacted by Product Realization even in the Quality Assurance Department. I have inputs, I have outputs, and I have processes in place to transform these inputs into the outputs desired by my Customer...my Company. This is Product Realization on a smaller scale.

All depends on the level you focus on.