J
It's interesting how narrowly or perhaps literally some people interpret 'design'. , but I imagine one of the factors at work is one's own experience and hence assumptions.
One person thinks that for anything to qualify as design,
Someone else has a truer and deeper understanding:
I can understand that for an engineer, creating a new wine seems to be a long way from what they understand as 'real design'. Another illustration of the importance of skilled and capable certifiers and auditors.
I checked back with ISO 9000: 2006, which defined design and development thus:
"set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into the specification of a product, process or system."
Of course, a definition is one thing, but being able to apply it and recognise it in the myriad different possible applications out there is another.
One person thinks that for anything to qualify as design,
the exercise must have precisely defined functional and performance requirements (which may change throughout the design process) and that the resulting design must be validated against those requirements.
If you are creating something new even if it is like something before it is still design.
I checked back with ISO 9000: 2006, which defined design and development thus:
"set of processes that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into the specification of a product, process or system."
Of course, a definition is one thing, but being able to apply it and recognise it in the myriad different possible applications out there is another.