Goods and services are the two subclassifications of Products. Goods and Services are clearly distinguishable from each other from an industrial management point of view. Goods refer to objects that are sold and whose substance (tier 1 invested value InV1) is owned by the industrial enterprise. Examples include machines, machine parts, tools, etc. Services, on the other hand, represent process manipulation activities over an object that does not belong to the industrial enterprise. Examples include painting, renting, repairing, machining, etc. Goods and services are the two dimensions of a product.

According to the management theory of Business Model Ontology, the creation of goods and services aims to increase the potential of the environment for human existence.

Overview

From a management perspective, an industrial enterprise is responsible for implementing specific processes to produce and sell its goods or services.

A process is the space-time existence of an object, from an initial object state to a final object state, being influenced by various factors in its surrounding process environment that manipulate its parameters through space and time.

Both goods and services are objects that are being processed by the industrial enterprise. The difference is in the ownership of the object, which can either be of the industrial enterprise or its partner-client.

In the case of goods production, the industrial enterprise purchases all the necessary raw materials (initial object states), performs manipulation activities over them and thus acquires final sold goods. The objects are the property of the industrial enterprise, and the client only cares about the parameters of the sold goods.

In the case of services production, the industrial enterprise performs manipulation activities over an object that is not its property. The objects belong to the clients, and the industrial enterprise must satisfy the client's requirements regarding the final parameters of the manipulated object.

Goods: objects whose substance belongs to the industrial enterprise sold to clients who are only concerned with the final state of the object.

Services: process or manipulation activity over an object whose substance does not belong to the industrial enterprise but rather to the clients who are responsible for the object's initial state and are concerned with the final state.

Practical application in various industries

Goods and services can be clearly and completely distinguished from one another by the theory about the principle setup and way of functioning of the industrial enterprise - Business Model Ontology, which conforms to the MECE principle (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive).

In the manufacturing industry, Goods can be metal parts, electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic tools, equipment, and machines, etc., where the industrial enterprise is responsible for purchasing the initial object state (raw materials), performing the necessary operations and after adding value to them (tier 2 to 5 invested value) sells them to the client. Services can be processing, painting, packaging, labelling, storage, laboratory measuring, quality control, etc., where the object is provided by the Client to the industrial enterprise for it to perform the necessary operations and after adding value to the object to return it back to the client.

In the restaurant industry, Goods can be food, drinks, etc. The restaurant purchases the initial ingredients (tier 1 invested value), after which performs necessary operations to create the good by adding value through Labour cost, Operation Place cost, Special resources cost and Organizational cost (tier 2 to 5 invested value) and sells them to the client. On the other hand, Services are related to the entrance, table charge, server, etc. In this case, the client enters the restaurant's administrative boundaries and uses its technological environment for which they pay. The tier 2 to 5 invested value is accumulated onto the client, observer as an object. The entrance fee, table charge, or server tip is a separate expense on the final bill which differentiates the goods from the services as the restaurant has expended resources (related to labor, operation place, special resources and organization) and invested them in the client.

National and International Classifications

Various national and international classification systems of products have been developed for economic statistical purposes. All of them classify products and distinguish them as 'goods' or 'services'.

The United States Census Bureau has developed the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) that classifies products by utilizing 6 hierarchical levels and has, at its highest level, 24 sections. According to the US Census Bureau, "NAPCS provides a comprehensive classification framework for services and goods."

The Statistics Agency of the European Union (eurostats) has developed the Statistical Classification of Products by Activity (CPA) that classifies products by utilizing 6 hierarchical levels and has, at its highest level, 21 sections. According to Eurostats, "The Statistical classification of products by activity, abbreviated as CPA, is the classification of products (goods as well as services) at the level of the European Union (EU)."

Hello !!

GOODS are Depreciable where as service are not if i talk more about goods they are perishable however services are not in this way they are not.

Goods are tangible things vs Services are intangible

Trifon Stefanov From the strategic marketing perspective, a product or a service has two sides or features, the physical side and the customer service. The physical side of a product comprises the physical infra structure that goes into production of that product or goods. For example, in production of electrical energy you need machinery/equipment, buildings for substations , systems and network to transmit the electricity to end user . On the other hand , the customer service features comprises of customer service, which is the actual delivery of the product or goods in the right quality and quantity to the final user and customer care(experience) that accompanies it and which entails the maximum comfort the customer or the final user perceives to be getting while receiving the product from the provider . Hence, the goods are physical features of the product and services are the customer features of the service of the product.

Ammar Alrawahna What about selling software (not a yearly subscription)? Or for example in manufacturing, one time we buy a metal rod which we process into a metal part and sell it, while another time, we receive a metal rod from our customer, and he requested the processing service on his metal rod in order to make the same metal part? We have absolutely the same product. A processed metal part made from a metal rod. But one is a service the other is a good. Wouldn't the difference be the Initial material... because once we own the initial material (metal rod) and our end result is a 'good', but other time we don't own it( the customer owns it) and our end result is a 'service'.

Rashika Shukla From what yo usaid, What about equipment that requires maintenance services? The equipment has depreciated and doesn't work anymore, so we service it and return it to life. So we extend its life, which increases its value from being scrap to working equipment. But with time, it deteriorates and again goes back to being broken and not working. Where did the service go? didn't the added value to the machine perish over time? In the case of painting service, the pain perishes with time and depreciates.

Amboka Asumwa Agustine I am seeing where your logic is coming from. I believe you are trying to look at all company expenses and activities regarding a product and look at the cost structure of an object from the point of view of services and goods. I would recommend the book Business Model Ontology uploaded on my profile. I believe that you will find it interesting. Thank you for your opinion!

Naturally, goods, same as products, are tangible, while are intangible. Goods are produced, stored and transported, while services are provided, not stored and transported. Cost wise, goods are more expensive to maintain than services because companies that provide services do not need to keep inventory.

Olorunfemi Joseph Ayoola Could you elaborate in what way 'companies that provide services do not need to keep inventory'?

Let's take a car paint shop that provides the "car painting" service. Would they not keep an inventory of paints, mixing machines, inventory of different types of spraying and painting equipment? There are still salaries, rent, utility costs, etc. Same situation with manufacturing processing services like milling machining services or lathe machining services which are super common services. Car maintenance shops also keep an inventory of hundreds of car items, same with exhaust repair shops. Even common services done by lawyers, medics, doctors, teachers, banks, etc., they all need to keep inventories of various items.

Using the mixed market theory that Goods and services must be combined, more than this strategy we can collaborate with sub-supporting businesses to keep in order. We can take cross profit from both of them to increasing competitiveness market.

As with car shop service, there are many kinds of Goods and services that can be done. Also, they can collaborate with many suppliers with minimal stock inventory while building a good supply chain system.

Goods and services can be understood in different ways. From a physical point of view, goods are generally understood to be tangible things, while services are generally understood to be transactions that do not involve the transfer of a physical thing, but the provision of an activity. As in many cases, the goods and the related service, or the underlying thing, are considered together in a context of interdependence, with relatively few clear distinctions.

In contract law, the services of the parties may be dare, facere and praestare, according to a distinction familiar since Roman law. A dare service means that the debtor is obliged to transfer civil property. The payment of money is always a dare service, since the transferee necessarily acquires the monetary property of the thing to be replaced.

Facere services are all those services where the debtor is not obliged to transfer civil property. For example, in an employment contract: the employer owes a money payment and his service is therefore dare, while the worker's service is facere. In the case of a sale, the seller's service is not dare, but the buyer, since he pays money as purchase price, owes dare.

However, facere can also be used in other meanings:

· In a broad sense, facere service covers virtually all services, and thus includes dare and praestare services, but can be contrasted with non facere services, which are not rendered or tolerated. The word facere includes all forms of doing, giving, performing, settling, judging, travelling.

· Neither dare nor praestare services are included in the narrow sense of facere services.

A praestare service is a standing, a guarantee. Whenever the debtor guarantees something, it is called a praestare service. Typical is the service of a guarantor. Another example is the custodia obligation. Dare, praestare services are not mutually exclusive.

Consensual contracts are created by the mere, informal agreement itself. Examples are sale, lease, company and trust. In the case of real contracts, the agreement between the parties is not sufficient; the obligation is created in these cases by the agreed transfer of a thing. These include loans, loans on account, deposits and pledges.

A more interesting question, however, beyond the division of goods and services, which has been worked out in detail since Roman times, is the different legal nature of physical goods and data, in particular personal data, and the legal regulation of these goods and data.

As many have often said, today's society is data-driven and is becoming increasingly so. However, it has been argued by just as many that personal data and its 'treatment' is very different from that of physical things, yet the law seeks to regulate it in the same way as it regulates physical things (because the legislator knows it, but not the nature of the data). In a global consumer society, the role of the consumer and the competition for it has been significantly enhanced, and the most important tool for this is personal data and its treatment. Data management on an industrial scale has created incredibly complex digital systems, which are often a challenge for experts to understand and, above all, to comprehend. Data can easily be copied and transmitted without being noticed and without adequate protection, the reality and appearance of digital data are disconnected, and it can easily be used to conduct transactions against the will of the data owner. Our data is out of our control in the traditional private sense. Yet, the regulatory model for data protection is still the 'chequered paper', the individual data that can be easily recorded and deleted. Someone has illustrated this with a witty example: regulation sees data management as a big library, where data protection can point to a volume that needs to be thrown away, and the balance of interests is restored by throwing it out. But nowadays these volumes are wired together by several strands, so if I take one off the shelf, shelves collapse in different parts of the library.

Data, by their very nature, do not behave like physical things, yet data protection law imposes a pattern of ownership on their management, creating the concept of 'information self-determination', with virtually unachievable expectations of both the data controller and the data holder. It requires the controller to ensure transparent processing and to provide information that is comprehensible to the lay data owner. But who, for example, can explain Facebook's data processing in a comprehensible way and who among ordinary citizens can understand it in detail? The situation is similar to that of consumer protection seeking to bridge the information asymmetry between business and consumer by imposing ever more detailed information obligations (according to a study by Italian researchers around 2010, the average consumer should spend 680 hours a year just reading privacy notices - based on a survey before the GDPR was introduced).

The EU takes an uncomfortable pride - rightly so - in the protection of human rights, which permeates data processing rules. In the 1970s of the last century, a data protection regulatory practice emerged that sought to regulate the then prevalent paper-based, offline and individualised data processing by introducing the concept of 'informal self-determination'. The GDPR is the culmination of this approach. However, over the last 50 years, the means, practices and forms of data management have changed radically, and it is difficult or, in many cases, impossible to apply the GDPR's requirements to these practices. Both the increasingly innovative players in the economy and the data protection authority are in a difficult position when it comes to judging the lawfulness of a given instrument. The following tables indicate the problems identified by the experts.

Criticism of data protection legislation

GDPR in the WORLD

Local Global

Static Dynamic

Uniform Variable

Abstract Concrete

Suspicious Interest-driven

Terrible bureaucratic background

Nominal stakeholder rights

Criticism of data protection practices

self-serving

arbitrary

Questions taken out of context

The notion of 'uncertain legal space' is problematic both in data protection lawmaking and in law enforcement, as in many cases the content of legal concepts is unformed, the same concept is applied in different ways with different meanings. In many cases, data protection is aristocratic: it considers itself as a fundamental constitutional right above other branches of law, ignoring other rules on the fundamental legal relationship, but also the doctrine of the law itself, and in many cases even claiming to have deliberately ignored it. Both legislation and the application of the law can and often do create legal uncertainty and unpredictability for operators.

The law is therefore apparently not yet clear on the relevant characteristics of personal data, which, due to the nature of the follow-up, will take time to be understood. This is also why it has not found the right ways to regulate data processing relationships in a way that can be applied with certainty by both data controllers and data processors. The problem is made more difficult by the fact that data protection supervisory authorities are not generally aware of the rules of operation of the area they are supervising, and that they act as authorities rather than as service providers to help solve the data management problems that are becoming commonplace. A systematic rethinking of the tasks of supervision and its adaptation to the real needs of society and the economy therefore seems necessary. Data protection should be a legal instrument, like other areas of law, to answer specific legal questions, but it must also be adapted to them, and for this purpose it is necessary to understand the real purposes, possibilities and techniques of data processing.

Practitioners have developed a number of solutions to address the data protection problems that arise (safe-harbours, regulatory sandboxes, instead of/beside data management notices, certifications, etc.). It would be useful to have a real and meaningful dialogue between the market and the authorities and regulators.

My opinion is that a good consist of both tangible and intangible items while services are only intangible items like teaching, fishing, computing , doctoring, just to list a few. In overall all Services are good but not all goods are services, since a service is just a subset of a good and cannot be torch or seen

Goods are generally tangible and services are intangible in terms of the act , however the service can result in the provision of goods.

It is not possible to separate the product and the service because the service is linked to the product and the product is linked to the service. For example, the car is a product that provides transportation services. However, there are organizations in which the product is higher than the service, such as Apple, which produces a phone to provide communication services. Likewise, there are organizations in which the service is higher than the product, such as hospitals, which initially provide the service of diagnosing the disease and treatment is a product.

Goods are tangible products that can be seen and touched, while services are intangible actions or processes. From a management perspective, goods involve managing production, inventory, and quality control, whereas services focus on customer interaction, process efficiency, and delivering intangible value.

The difference between goods and services is one of the fundamental issues in economics and business. The service sector is considered the economic pillar of the countries, and due to the growth of technology, a great demand has been created for this sector to the point that in some countries more than 70% of the working population is working in the service sector. The service sector includes all business activities that deal with intangible goods. This includes the following industries: Construction industry, wholesale and retail industry, logistics industry, consulting industry, financial services, hotel industry, real estate industry, health services, education and public services.

Goods are tangible physical items called products such as makeup, perfume etc. while services are intangible discharge of functions like repairs, maintenance, etc. Products and services are interrelated. Products are used in rendering services while services are secured to manufacture products

The difference between goods and services is clear. Anything that turns into a physical object that can be touched in the production process is considered a commodity.

Services include activities that cannot be seen but are tradable.