Verification protocols outline the tests going to be utilized to confirm that the product inputs = outputs. For each input there must be an output that is verified which is done by creating experimental tests to back the data up with numbers. The protocol will list each test in a document. The report will take all the test results and consolidate them into a single document showing what passed and what failed. The results are often also placed into a DSD or Design Matrix. I think both are important for the success of the product but if one had to be chosen then I would say the protocol is more important since a well planned out protocol can greatly reduce project execution timing (poor protocols may require multiple iterations until quality results are obtained).

Verification protocols are the steps one needs to take to ensure proper guidelines, tolerance values and consistency is met. The protocol will list certain actions that need to be performed as well as the expected or acceptable outcome. In comparison, a verification report is a shortened version of the outcomes of the verification protocols usually in a pass/fail system. Additionally, further notes can be included as to why the test failed if known as well as what steps will be taken in the future to ensure the product passes. Furthermore, there are instances where the verification report can indicate the need for a change in the verification protocol due to new manufacturing tolerances or acceptable regulatory standards.

In my opinion, both verification protocols and reports are incredibly important however if I had to choose, I think that verification reports are more important than verification protocols. As @anthonynjit described above, a verification protocol lists what is going to be done and how. It outlines exactly what procedure is planned.

In contrast, a verification report explains what actually occurred. It addresses any deviations from the protocol that happened and shows the results. As someone that works in a testing group, things rarely ever end up going according to plan and deviations happen, which is something that the report is able to capture while the protocol cannot. The results is also something exclusive to the report, which is the entire purpose of conducting the verification testing to begin with!

Does anybody disagree? 

Thanks,

Matt

A common trend that can be seen throughout the responses is that the verification protocol comes first and then the verification report follows. This is similar to how in our BME Capstone class during undergrad at NJIT we had to create a requirements document as well as a testing protocol where the requirements document outlined all the inputs of the project while the testing protocol outlined all of the outputs of the project - similar to how @ridmehta compared the verification protocol to inputs and verification report to outputs. The verification protocol needs to be properly outlined and defined so that there are no errors in the verification report, otherwise, every failure or shortcoming that occurs needs to be revisited and modified so that it passes in the verification report. For a manager it is more important for the verification protocol to be executed efficiently and effectively than the verification report to ensure that there does not need to be a repeat or a revisit of any aspect of the project that had already been addressed the first time.

I think both are equally important because the verification protocol gives a whole set of criteria that must be met in order to get a pass or fail result from the verification report. It is important to understand the whole process of developing/ manufacturing a product. Was the equipment working properly, was something else added to the machine that was not supposed to, and therefore we got the unfavorable result? I think both go hand in hand because, without a protocol, you can't really verify it since there is no guidance to follow.  If the protocol is set correctly then, there are going to be fewer mistakes, less rework, and redesign, and lower production costs. 

As previous responses have stated, verification protocol defines the type of tests that will be performed and how they will be performed. This includes the process of the tests, the schedule of the test, and it also defines the metrics to determine if a test has passed or failed. A verification report is a compilation of verification protocols, and whether or not the tests defined in the protocols have passed or failed. I think that the verification protocol is more important in the execution process than the verification report. The report is merely a summarized version of the protocol document - and it details whether a certain test has passed or not, and briefly explains why. If a project manager wanted to understand why a test failed, I would assume that they’re better off looking at the verification protocol document. This is because they’ll be able to see exactly how that test was run, when it was administered, under what conditioners, what the inputs and metrics were, etc. All of this information aids in better understanding of why a certain test might have failed and how it can be fixed, compared to the shortened version in the verification report. In addition, a verification protocol document might be easier to edit and revise, than a report since the report document already has whether a test has passed or failed.