I am interested in gaining some backgound information and guidance on
the development of product specifications -- more geared to
determining a definition for "Product Specification".
Questions such as:
Where does a product spec end and process spec begin?
What's the difference between a product spec and a BOM?
What is the proper relationship between a product spec and product
Insight and/or pointers to sources of information would be greatly
A process spec defines the starting and ending points of a
process. An envelope, if you will. A product spec defines the
thing that is inside the envelope, that achieves those endpoints.
A customer has a process spec, a manufacturer hoping to sell to
that customer has a product spec.
A product specification describes the *function* of the entirety,
how much "A" it makes and in what amount of time. A BOM and
drawings are produced using the product specification as a guide.
A final inspection will assure that the product produced "meets"
the expectations outlined in the product spec.
Teachers know to look here for plagiarism too.
In fact Google has spotted either you or one of your classmates
already. The first hit on Google with:
product-spec OR product-specification process-spec OR
David A. Smith
voice_of firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
A product spec defines an end-item-requirement, i.e. what you
want when all is said and done. It should define all physical installation
interfaces, all functional interfaces & operation, and specify how those
interfaces and operations are tested. It should NOT define how the product
Process spec is the ultimate "how-to" spec and is the opposite of a
BOM lists all the parts that make up an assembly. A Product Spec does not
have a BOM. A Product Spec may require the use of certain part(s) if that is
essential to the end item functionality, but the balance of the parts should
not be so defined.
The Product Spec should completely define how the product is inspected
MIL-STD-961...although what I've posted here is general and in no way
unique to military procurement.
Thank you for your reply.
On Jan 26, 1:52 am, email@example.com (Harry Andreas) wrote:
These all dovetail with my own understanding and expectations.
A little more background on the situation.....
I am currently working with an employer whose major business in the
importing of a wide variety of products for resale in the US market.
The company has been in business for a VERY long time....but has just
recently decided to bring its QA/QC processes into the 20th century
(no, that's not a typo).
Product "specifications" is left up to the suppliers. They essentially
tell us what they are selling us. heretofore, it has been up to the
supplier to provide as much (or little) detail in their specification
as they deem appropriate. Management has now embarked on a project of
trying to "tighten" this situation by requesting specific pieces of
information. The overall goal -- according to management -- is to
"make sure we are getting from our suppliers what we ordered". In my
estimation, the types of information being requested straddles across
the boundaries of product spec, process spec and a BOM. A form has
been developed for this purpose. But, due to the wide variety of
products dealt with, it is difficult to have "one size fits all"
solution. The result is a single form that is hodge-podge amalgamation
of all three....with differing amounts of information and detail for
different products....and the decision of what types of information
are required being made 'ad-hoc' by whomever deals with that specific
product. To make matters worse, the document is then suppied to a
third party service to perform product inspections.
I have been involved in some rather intense "philosophical"
discussions with management over this issue. I'm trying to come up
with a fresh way of conceptualizing the problem so that -- hopefully
-- a fresh solution will preseent itself.
Insight, suggestions, or tales of previous experiences
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.