What is Product realization??

[Sidney Vianna]

How about this one: "Needs fulfillment."

Let me rephrase it: Does anyone have better suggestions for "product realization"?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

People involved with international standards development know some of the compromises which have to be reached in order to make a certain terms translatable to multiple languages, one of the challenges faced by the TC 176.

As ISO 9001 attempts to satisfy the needs of non-manufacturing organizations, private and governmental entities, I personally believe that "product realization" is not too bad.

Does anyone have other suggestions for "product realization"?

I suppose "making stuff" is too simplistic?

I thought the old "manufacturing and providing services" worked just fine...but, it's done. No need to fiddle with it. Thousands of companies now wrote it into their systems...:truce:

 

[Stijloor]

Let me rephrase it: Does anyone have better suggestions for "product realization"?

I thought you were looking for better definitions of the term....

Stijloor.

 

[JaneB]

I suppose "making stuff" is too simplistic?

Yes, 'fraid so.

While I applaud the simplicity, I think it's too narrow in meaning. (How would you like it if us services people proposed 'doing stuff' instead?

Doesn't work at all for all those organisations (large % and increasing!) who are services-based. They don't 'make stuff' at all, and have enough trouble coping with the concept that 'product = product and/or service without being put off by the 'making stuff'. And then there's quite a lot of businesses, while they deal in some physical stuff, don't actually make it. They may distribute it, for example. Or repair it. And don't get me started on the IT/software side of things, where it's largely digital 'stuff'...

I don't care for the product realization phrase either

But I can't think of a better one! I can just imagine the conversations the committee had on this one... sooner them than me.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Yes, 'fraid so.

While I applaud the simplicity, I think it's too narrow in meaning. (How would you like it if us services people proposed 'doing stuff' instead?

Doesn't work at all for all those organisations (large % and increasing!) who are services-based. They don't 'make stuff' at all, and have enough trouble coping with the concept that 'product = product and/or service without being put off by the 'making stuff'. And then there's quite a lot of businesses, while they deal in some physical stuff, don't actually make it. They may distribute it, for example. Or repair it. And don't get me started on the IT/software side of things, where it's largely digital 'stuff'...

I don't care for the product realization phrase either

But I can't think of a better one! I can just imagine the conversations the committee had on this one... sooner them than me.

Obviously, "making stuff" was facetious. However, I thought the old "manufacturing and providing services" worked just fine...but, it is what it is.

 

[JaneB]

Obviously, "making stuff" was facetious. However, I thought the old "manufacturing and providing services" worked just fine...but, it is what it is.

We need that 'tongue in cheek' icon!

What about 'making or doing stuff for customers' then?

 

[pmwong]

pal,

maybe some of this info of product realization might interest you

regards

 

[Peter Fraser]

I usually tell my clients it simply refers to the process of "Realizing" an actual product from Design Concepts to Finished Production. We "realized" or developed a product.

Helmut

So how do you explain the "Design and Development" section of the standard to them?(!) Is that a different type of "development"?

And what about a wholesaler, who buys, stores and ships goods, but doesn't make anything?


The definitions we use are:

Product: “goods or services which are produced or provided by an organisation for the benefit of another organisation or person.”

Customer: “an organization or person that receives a product from another organisation or person.”

Supplier: “an organization or person that provides a product to another organisation or person.”

[Payment is not necessary for the “customer” or “supplier” relationship (although payment is often involved, and this might be one of the characteristics which comes to mind first).]

Sticking to as simple terms as possible: production ("the process of producing") creates a "product", so seems to be a good start, until you "realise" that it is a term used in ISO9001 but not even defined in ISO9000. I suggest that most people in the service sector would find that term less alien that the alternative in the standard. But why does ISO9000 not even define a term that it uses but no-one else did until they invented it?

Production of a design / a prototype / a plan for full scale production are are concepts which I think are perfectly clear.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Helmut

So how do you explain the "Design and Development" section of the standard to them?(!) Is that a different type of "development"?

And what about a wholesaler, who buys, stores and ships goods, but doesn't make anything?


The definitions we use are:

Product: “goods or services which are produced or provided by an organisation for the benefit of another organisation or person.”

Customer: “an organization or person that receives a product from another organisation or person.”

Supplier: “an organization or person that provides a product to another organisation or person.”

[Payment is not necessary for the “customer” or “supplier” relationship (although payment is often involved, and this might be one of the characteristics which comes to mind first).]

Sticking to as simple terms as possible: production ("the process of producing") creates a "product", so seems to be a good start, until you "realise" that it is a term used in ISO9001 but not even defined in ISO9000. I suggest that most people in the service sector would find that term less alien that the alternative in the standard. But why does ISO9000 not even define a term that it uses but no-one else did until they invented it?

Production of a design / a prototype / a plan for full scale production are are concepts which I think are perfectly clear.

Design and Development, Distribution, etc. is all part of the chain of events to supply a product or service. Somewhere in the chain, someone had to design something, and at the end, it usually has to be distributed, etc.

That's why I liked "making or doing stuff..."

But, I don't think there should be any major confusion. It's just an awkward term. But, now it is baked in, and the point is moot. Odd that they don't list it in the Glossary, however.