Key takeaways
Short answer: Verification and validation — often shortened to V&V — answer two different questions that are easy to blur. Verification asks did we build it right: does the product, process, or system meet its specified requirements? Validation asks did we build the right thing: does it actually meet the real-world need it was meant to satisfy? You can pass verification and still fail validation if the specification itself did not capture the true need. Both are essential, and they catch different failures. For the conformance side at the unit level, see inspection vs testing.
Verification is the check that something has been built to its specification — that it conforms to the defined requirements. Did this part meet the drawing? Does this process follow the validated procedure? Does this system do what the spec said it should? Verification compares the actual against the documented requirement, and it is inherently objective: the requirement exists, and you confirm the thing matches it. In manufacturing, verification is the world of inspection, testing against spec, and checking that a process was performed as defined. Its phrase is did we build it right — right meaning in accordance with the requirements we wrote down. What verification cannot tell you is whether those requirements were the correct ones in the first place.
Validation is the check that something meets the actual need — that it is fit for its intended purpose in the real world. Does this product actually work for the customer in use? Does this process reliably produce a result that satisfies the real requirement, not just the written one? Validation compares the actual against the genuine need, which makes it broader and sometimes harder than verification, because it questions whether the specification itself was right. Its phrase is did we build the right thing. A product can pass every verification check — perfectly conforming to its spec — and still fail validation if the spec was incomplete or wrong, leaving a technically-correct product that does not actually do what the user needs.
The classic shorthand captures the whole distinction: verification is building it right; validation is building the right thing. They are sequential and complementary, but independent — passing one does not guarantee the other. Verification confirms conformance to the specification; validation confirms the specification, and the product, actually serve the need. The dangerous gap is a product that is perfectly verified against a flawed spec: every check passes, and it still fails the customer, because the requirements never captured the real need. This is why mature quality and engineering processes do both — verify that requirements are met, and validate that meeting them actually solves the problem. Neither alone is sufficient.
A team is asked to produce a bracket specified as 50 mm long. Verification: measure the brackets — they are all 50 mm, within tolerance, conforming perfectly to the drawing. Verification passes; the bracket was built right. But in assembly, the brackets do not fit, because the real requirement was a 55 mm bracket and the specification was simply wrong. Validation — checking the bracket against the actual need, fitting it in the real assembly — fails. The team built the thing right, but built the wrong thing. No amount of verification would have caught it, because verification only confirms conformance to the spec; it took validation against the genuine need to expose that the spec itself was the problem.
Use verification throughout to confirm that each requirement is met — inspections, tests against spec, process checks, design reviews against documented criteria. Use validation at the points where you can confirm the thing actually meets the real need — process validation that a manufacturing process reliably yields conforming product, product validation that it performs in real use, design validation against user requirements. In regulated industries the two are formally required and distinct, but the logic applies everywhere: verify continuously that you are meeting requirements, and validate at key milestones that the requirements and the result genuinely serve the purpose. Skipping validation is how organisations ship perfectly-made products that miss the point.
The V&V distinction underpins trust in the quality factor of OEE and in the process behind it. Inspection and testing verify that units conform to spec, feeding the good-versus-defective count. But validation matters too: a process that has been validated reliably produces conforming output, which is what keeps the quality factor stable rather than a matter of luck — closely related to whether the process is in control and capable. An unvalidated process can pass today's inspection and drift tomorrow. Verifying units protects this batch; validating the process protects the OEE quality factor over time.
Fabrico measures the quality outcome of your process over time — the good, reworked, and scrapped counts that reveal whether a process is reliably producing conforming product or merely passing inspection batch to batch. That trend is part of how you confirm a process stays validated in practice: a quality factor that holds steady is evidence the process genuinely meets the need, while drift is an early warning that verification alone is masking a deeper problem. Book a demo to see process quality hold up over time.
Verification checks that something was built to its specification — did we build it right? Validation checks that it meets the actual need — did we build the right thing? You can pass verification yet fail validation if the specification itself was wrong for the real need.
Yes, and it is the classic failure. A product can conform perfectly to its specification (pass verification) yet not meet the real-world need (fail validation), because the specification was incomplete or wrong. Verification cannot catch a flawed spec.
Verification is building it right — meeting the requirements. Validation is building the right thing — meeting the actual need. Verification checks conformance to the spec; validation checks fitness for the real purpose.
Verify continuously to confirm each requirement is met — inspections, tests against spec, design reviews. Validate at key milestones to confirm the requirements and result actually serve the need — process validation, product validation, design validation against user requirements.
Inspection and testing verify units against spec, feeding the OEE quality factor. Validation confirms the process reliably produces conforming output, which keeps that quality factor stable over time rather than dependent on luck — related to whether the process is in control and capable.
Вход
Блог
