posted 24 February 2000 07:58 AM               

A hypothetical company sells extended warranties. Contracts come from stores such as Walmart which sell appliances and such. The company selling the extended service contracts does not actually do any service - actual repair/replacement is contracted out. As I interpret their business system, they design the extended warranty (service) contracts they sell.

posted 24 February 2000 05:57 PM               

Design of a Service is the development process where a customer's needs are translated into a proposal, quote, tender, contract or contract change proposal to fully meet the customer's requirement. The design specification include as a minimum the requirement for:
a. a structure for management/supervision;
b. a structure for quality;
c. a structure for performance of tasks to deliver a defined "service";
d. the provision for customer feedback, quality control and assurance;
e. the identification of needed human and material resources, and
f. the costing of those resources

I'll send you a cleansed example procedure for design in the Service sector.

Cheers.

posted 29 February 2000 01:14 AM               

From: Edwin Humphries [email protected]

Marc,

In the same way that service organisations design their services, manufacturing operations design their processes, and project organisations design the project plans.

By the logic you're suggesting, we should apply design control to process and project design.

As a service provider myself, I find the (regrettably frequent) suggestion (often by certifiers/registrars) that organisations like me should use design control in development of services rather ludicrous. It's relatively hard (although possible) to apply it to chemical products, but at least there's a real product development process in place there. Not so for a service.

posted 19 March 2000 06:01 PM               

From: Charley Scalies [email protected]

> From: [email protected]
SNIP
> As a service provider we do have design. We have some standard off the
> shelf designs that is standard training packages...
> Then we have custom services which are determined with our clients as to
> what they want and a time frame. We have found it very beneficial to
> maintain this system so that both we and are clients are happy when the
> project is over.

If the "new ISO9000" has any benefits at all, I think one might be that it could help people look at the intent of the requirements and not just at the words, thereby allowing them to take and use what benefits their particular application.

I repeatedly stress to my customers (almost to the point where some of them threaten to toss me out if they hear it again) that if they are unable to tell me what the purpose of every requirement is, in terms of what is it expected to accomplish, i.e., what "good" is it?, then they really don't understand the requirement. BTW, applying that same concept to every procedure you write can be a superb and relatively painless way to identify and establish the functional objectives the new ISO9000 talks about. "Why am I doing this?" How will I know (measure) if it worked or not?"

What you have seen from some of the comments on this topic is the "baggage" we all have - our paradigms. They continue to get in our way. The best I have ever been able to do is to be aware of the ones I have and then smack my own hand, hard, whenever I catch myself being warped by them.

posted 19 March 2000 06:04 PM               

From: Al Hitchcock [email protected]

I have employed ISO-9001 4.4 in numerous organizations both in retail and service environments using the design and development model that the standard provides. This is where you make your home run. One thing that always bugged me was companies that do design development work, either tangible or intangible product design and somehow think that they are excluded from the standard. They exclude 4.4 from their quality system. Junk in - junk out. If you design it. Control it. ISO is very simply put as communications within an organization. Why wouldn't you want your designers/engineers talking to your suppliers/ customers/ manufacturers/ and installers/servicing dept as part of a formal process and include them in design reviews. This stuff is fundamental and makes business sense whether your designing services for clients or hardware. 4.4 is the ISO home run in my opinion and I've seen it do wonderful things improving product/service quality. If you do this... do that 4.4.

posted 19 March 2000 06:08 PM               

From: [email protected]

> 4.4 is the ISO home run in my opinion and I've seen it do wonderful
> things improving product/service quality.

Applause to Al for this statement (and, for those of you who don't know the game of baseball, a "home run" is a good thing ).

I was involved with an engineering outfit that performed every one of the 4.4 requirements, whenever it responded to a publicly issued Request for Proposal. In effect, that firm's Proposal was a custom designed service package. Because of "old school" thinking regarding 4.4 applying only to manufactured products, only ohhhh, one out of ten people at that firm could follow my thinking. So I'm pleased to see this list come up with so many favorable applications for the 4.4 requirements, especially as it pertains to professional services as the "product."

posted 19 March 2000 06:19 PM               

From: [email protected]

Edwin,

Sorry if you took the response personally. I had originally thought of putting some examples from past experience but remembered the email about keeping it short. But I will risk that for examples at this time. I had a client who did work for a company who sold to one of the big three. They were being pushed to go QS. The irony was the big three company would not give them the criteria for critical dimensions nor the expected Cpk they were to measure. And it was not the middle company that was the problem because one of their engineers had left the middle company and gone to my client. In addition neither the middle company nor the big three company would provide workmanship criteria and yet they would not accept the criteria that was an industry accepted standard for that industry (plastics injection molding). They would arbitrarily decide they did not like the looks of it. We finally had to sit down and start having meetings to get the criteria established and then both agree to use it.

Another more current example is a client in Texas (cable assembly). They have QS clients also. They are currently experiencing the same problems with a company that sells to two of the big three. They do not get acceptance criteria in advance. So they have started monthly and in the early implementation stages weekly "design criteria" meeting with the customers to get what they need.

Too bad these companies can not rely on their QS9001 customers to do what they are asking of the supplier!!!!

posted 21 March 2000 07:58 PM               

From: Edwin Humphries [email protected]

Phyllis

> From: [email protected]
>
> I find it interesting that some people can see how the standard pertains to
> others but never to themselves. A shortsidedness that seems to prevail in
> some mind sets that force quality systems on their suppliers but can't
> manage them for their own business.

While sometimes I may disagree with you, I don't think I've ever been condescending. Let me assure you, my shortsidedness is entirely physical, and I have forced quality on nobody. Ever.

I have, in fact, struggled on behalf of my clients to make quality relevant, effective and simple, without being simplistic.

> As a service provider we do have design. We have some standard off the
> shelf designs that is standard training packages that we consistently
> review at least once a quarter to determine if they can be improved using
> feedback from our clients.

As a (hypothetical) manufacturer, I may also have a process, and this process must be designed. I do not, however, choose to gain ISO certification for the design of my process. I also have (regardless of my industry) a management system, which also must be designed; however, I do not choose to become certified to develop my own management system.

It is therefore not simply having a design component in what I do that determines whether I have ISO9001 or 9002 certification. Let's look at what ISO says about the applicability of 9001:

* "ISO9001-1994 should be selected and used when the need is to demonstrate the supplier's capability to control the processes for design as well as production of conforming product. ... ISO9001-1994: for use when conformance to specified requirements is to be assured by the supplier during design, development, production, installation, and servicing." (ISO9000.1)

* This International Standard specifies quality-system requirements for use where a supplier's capability to design and supply conforming product needs to be demonstrated. (ISO9001)

There are two issues clearly identified:

1. Is there a product? Products are defines as "commodities offered for sale; the amount of an artifact that has been produced by someone or some process." I don't consider what I, personally, offer as either a commodity or an artifact.

2. More importantly, is there is a need to demonstrate control over the design process? For most service companies, the clear answer is a resounding NO. The agonising is almost invariably internal to the organisation itself, and few clients are concerned. In fact, I would suggest that most clients, whether having a repair done on their car or seeking someone's assistance with a business plan, would consider there to be any design in the activity at all.

> Then we have custom services which are determined with our clients as to
> what they want and a time frame.
>
> We have found it very beneficial to maintain this system so that both we
> and are clients are happy when the project is over.

I'm happy for you, but are you sure you do all of the following:

* Design and development planning?
* Organizational and technical interfaces?
* Design input?
* Design output?
* Design review?
* Design verification?
* Design validation?
* Design changes?

Personally, I doubt it.

For most service companies, interpretation of ISO 9000 is quite a challenge, as it wasn't written with them in mind. Most of the people I hear suggesting that Design Control has strong relevance to a service industry are either consultants or certifiers/registrars. That would seem more than a little self serving.

Let's not make things even more difficult for service companies than they already are, by forcing most of them as a square peg into the round hole of Design Control.

posted 22 March 2000 02:16 AM               

From: [email protected]

Edwin,

As a matter of fact we do! first let me say there are only 3 people currently in our company but we have had others at remote location on staff that were involved. We now only subcontract to them rather than maintain staff. That said:

* Design and development planning?
I do most of the initial development of what I think we need to do for a new software product to meet our customer's needs based on my discussion with them. The same holds true for training programs and implementation. I usually do it in a note pad that is then placed in a file during the development stage. For our contracts I generate a formal contract with what can be expected and what the deliverables are from both sides and a time line. Most clients want this to justify their budgets anyway. I have found it helpful when a management rep leaves and the new one doesn't have the same understanding of the process or like recently happened the Management rep got a new boss and he needed the contract with the plan to let his new boss know what to expect when.

* Organizational and technical interfaces?
This is easy with us being so small. From the start of a project a project leader is assigned to the company. That person is responsible for all communications with the company and all messages are directed to that person.

For new software that will be used for more than one client we have one of the 2 programmers (not I) assigned to the project and he does all the tracking of feedback. They have a software program they use to collect data for the next revision. Which also takes me to the next step.

* Design input?
For the software we listen to the client for the most part and I use my previous years of experience at companies like Intel for what management has asked for in addition to what I collected so I could make educated decisions on our suppliers and processes.

* Design output?
For training and implementation the output is defined in the contract up front. For the software the output is defined by the wants and needs of the clients and our own input. For standard training programs like internal auditor we review the training manuals after each class against the feedback sheet we have the class fill out regarding the materials used. We also take into consideration changes in interpretations and make sure the class is upgraded as needed. We also include standard changes such as the 2000 change which we are in the planning and evaluation stage of right now. We will not start until the official release as 1994 changed a couple of key items from the last drafts.

* Design review?
Periodically on the software I review what the status is. As a new report is generated from the software I am given the report and see if it will meet the input as I understand it from the client and as I have asked. I may mark it up or may agree with it. The programmers keep a binder with all my input on the reports. (I think it is a CYA as much as anything that I have approved something in case I forget later). For implementation projects I review status with clients at least once a month sometimes more during the early documentation stages. I keep an excel spread sheet which gives a score for each of the stages against each of the deliverables. When we get to 100% we know we are ready for an audit. The clients love it because they can track their progress in a % of completion.

* Design verification?
This is easy on the software. They let me try to break it and use it. I make notes or they watch and make notes which go into the note book for changes they need to make to meet our original criteria plus any that were added along the line. We occasionally ask the client what they think of this or that or what or how they want to see something so that it is added to the final verification stage.

The implementation verification is also done but is not so obvious. We do an independent pre assessment audit. That is the person who did the implementation gets another staff person or a subcontractor to do the preassessment. We also call this our final inspection.

* Design validation?
For the software we beta test with at least 2 of the clients who are asking for the software or the software changes. We prefer to have more and are always open to anyone who wants to beta test. The validation of the implementation is whether or no the company passes their audit. Not exactly our validation but we consider it valid. We check to see if any of the non conformances are repeats of previous ones from other companies and try to implement changes so the next client does not have the same problem. However, we can not keep company employees from making or using uncontrolled copies of documents no matter how hard we try and how hard we emphasize it. That is the only one we still get from time to time that is a consistent repeat.

Design changes?
If we need to make a change we always contact the client and see what they want to do. Even with schedule changes we work through email and faxes to document what is changing. This works from them to us as well. We may enhance a software program but we still contact them to see if it is a problem during the design phases. Many of our upgrades have come from clients who want to make this change or have that report. We store the upgrades until we feel there is enough or until one client feels they can't live without the change and then we make the change. They usually are one of our validation sites plus we have a few select other that we pick on.

Is our system unnecessary? Maybe. Does it work for us? You bet. Do we do it because of ISO? No because we are not registered. We do it because it makes good business sense and has meant that our clients are much happier with the products and services since they are defined up front for them.

We even have an "OOPS!" process for out of process /service meaning this is our non conforming procedure. And we have a corrective and preventive action procedure so we don't make the same mistake more than once if we can help it.

I am not saying that every company that is service oriented has to do design. The question is whether it is beneficial to the client or customer? If you feel you don't need it and the customer or client is happy with out it fine. If you find that there are problems on both sides with what you have agreed upon and what is expected maybe you should at least consider beefing up contract review.

It works wonderfully for us and it makes for happy clients. And that is how our business is spread is from our happy clients.

posted 23 March 2000 01:08 AM               

From: Don Arbuckle [email protected]

re: design for service companies

I have to go along with Phyllis. Depending on the service (product) provided there can be a very definite design process.

We are also ISO 9001 compliant (having found no business case for registration) and find the controls to be very helpful internally and our customers (especially the service clients) can see exactly how the standard fits the service industry. I have assisted over two dozen service agencies achieve ISO 9000 compliance/registration including both ISO 9001 and ISO 9002. In each case we look to see if the service they provide is unique, or industry driven. When industry driven, then rarely is there a discussion about including design in the scope of the implementation...it is not there! On the other hand, if the processes they follow are unique, because the service they provide is unique, then controlling the design process is not only included in the implementation, but is a business requirement.

posted 23 March 2000 08:01 AM               

From: [email protected]

> I have to go along with Phyllis. Depending on the service (product)
> provided there can be a very definite design process.

I really liked Phyllis' post, and it's supported by (somewhat) objective evidence:

The 1999 Survey of ISO9000 users available off a home-page link at www.qualitydigest.com states that companies that attempted to exceed the minimum Standard requirements reported a more favorable return on investment.

It's so easy to find a list of reasons not to apply 4.4 Design Review. Apparently, it's costly too!