I had a discussion recently about this:

Must you have a closure from the customer on his complaint before you continue to supply?
Anyone

Bear in mind that I'm not TS...but my take is no. If the complaint is on Widget A, and remains unresolved, why shouldn't you be able to supply the customer with Widget B? That being said if the issue is with a particular issue on Widget A, where is the guarantee that the issue will repeat?

If we supply a customer with 1"x1"x1/2" angle and there is a quality defect, our investigation usually reveals that it was something to do with the way it was rolled during that shift. Subsequent 1"x1"x1/2" angle does not necessarily have the same issues.

But like I said, I'm not TS...

Added a bit later...I also think that the magnitude/severity of the complaint should weigh into the decision as to whether or not the supplying can continue.

Howard : Out of curiousity, is someone saying that the supplying must stop? If so, is it the supplier or the Customer? Just curious.

Customer closure? We get customer complaints "every once in a while" :notme: but that normally means going on containment of some type. We don't wait for the customer to give us an "officail" OK for our containment activities or we would miss shipments. As far as filling out the customer's corrective action form, other than the ones that have web sites for their forms, I have yet to receive a "closure" document of any kind. After submitting a final response, if the issue has been rectified and validated internally, we tell the customer we are off containment. To expect an answer from most of our customers is asking a bit much, I'm afraid.

I wont wait for the closure unless it is a serious / major complaint getting repeated over and over again.

In one of my previous employment, we used to receive repeated customer complaints on short counts of blister strips which were placed in a carton. For this we had a corrective action as a short term measure and a preventive action, which required about 2 months for introduction of new equipment. These actions steps were approved by the customer.

Unless for the above mentioned, the action steps for minor incidents were not referred for customer approval.

I had a discussion recently about this:

Must you have a closure from the customer on his complaint before you continue to supply?
Anyone

Does the definition of "closure" extend to the customer telling you to keep shipping while the issue is being resolved?

I say it depends on the severity of the complaint.

If the complaint comprimises product quality, then the decision to continue to supply might lead to a repeat of the original complaint category - that wouldn't be good for customer relationships.

If however, the issue was relatively minor , then I'd consider it to be a reasonable step to take.

If you can identify interim measures to take to prevent the recurrence, then I might be persuaded to continue shipment.

If the customer tells you to stop shipping the product until the complaint is closed out then you have no choice. On the other hand, if you know that continued shipments will result in shipping defective product than closure of the complaint is not relevant since you should not be shipping it anyway. Another possibility is that the complaint has not met the process requirements for closure, will not result in sending defective product and you are voluntarily stopping shipments merely because of an internal decision or process. In this last situation, you may not be considering what is in the best interest of the customer. I would think a conversation with the customer to obtain understanding and consensus on the continued shipping of product would be needed.

Bill Pflanz

If the customer tells you to stop shipping the product until the complaint is closed out then you have no choice.
It depends on the nature of the contract. If the supplier has met the specified requirements, the customer can't unilaterally suspend shipments because of some double-secret requirement that the supplier knows nothing about. In fact, in such a case, the supplier's acquiescence might be later construed as acknowledgement and acceptance.

I would think a conversation with the customer to obtain understanding and consensus on the continued shipping of product would be needed.
Yes. :agree1:

It depends on the nature of the contract. If the supplier has met the specified requirements, the customer can't unilaterally suspend shipments because of some double-secret requirement that the supplier knows nothing about. In fact, in such a case, the supplier's acquiescence might be later construed as acknowledgement and acceptance.


Jim,

I concede there could be contract clauses that would prevent a unilateral suspension but forcing a defective product on a customer does not make good business sense. Not knowing the nature of the complaint, the question becomes whether the supplier failed to meet a specific requirement. For all we know, there is a clause that requires resolution of customer complaints before further shipping.

We both agreed that communication between customer and supplier was the best solution. Based on my experiences, it is not good business in the long run for either party to fall back on quoting a contract clause to resolve a problem. It is too bad handshake agreements are not common anymore and companies must rely on a document created by lawyers.

Bill Pflanz

I appreciate the answers.
I agree that if the complaint gets to levels of CSLII (GM) for example it is a different ball game.
I was thinking philosophically at the requirements of Corrective actions, if your review of the actions from a complaint are enough to close the issue.

In other words must the CAR be closed by the instigator.
I agreee that many custoemrs do not reply, those with web systems do close them.
Please do not get to much into the nuts and bolts of the issue rather a feeling of what is the right thing to do.
Thanks

This is a terific thread. There is so much material for discussion.

My answer would be, "Ask the customer."

I would think that if a problem has been identified, a call to the customer for direction, instructions, etc. would be in order.

I say the answer to the original question lies with the customer.

Regards,

Dirk

Howard Atkins Brilliant Question. Excellent,

In my oppinion is a Cost problem.

Sometimes the rate of faillure is, lets say 3 ppm, and the Customer find this part and raise a G8D but there is a yearly agreement of PPms. This happend me with Toyoda, they found always the defect part in a million batch and they used to raise a G8D for a single part.

I would say Javier rule:


If cummulative ppm > yearly agreed ppm -> Stop and ask the customer. :mad:


If cummulative ppm total < yearly agreed ppm -> Continue sending. :notme:

But the calculus to do is:

Cost or rework Vs Cost of Linedown. Imagine to Stop the Line of BMW, or Ford. Or imagine to mount an assembly in car and then to call for revision. The answer is the calculus. (To calculate the cost of no-quality)

You know sometimes with the process "per-se" is imposible to achive the 0 ppm and it is assumed taking into account the price and the agreement in terms of Quality. An strategic solution.

Zero ppms could be sometimes very expensive for the price given by Purshasing (i,e re-engineering and change of the full process). Then compare the Cost of no Quality with the cost of re-engineering

Cost of No Quality > cost of re-engineering -> Change the process (re-engineering ) or improve the process (PDCA ).

Cost of no Quality < cost of re-engineering ...... It depends of Overall benefit to solve it..


This calculus is absolutely mandatory, whether not we could have financial problems with Logistics or Quality charge backs and there are many Supplier that are losing money for that reason. They take the "green Card" (P.O) to supply to a big company and start the nightmare for them. (Even with the PPAPs and APQP, Be realistic. there are many Supplier with datas with are not true in capabilies studies or others. even with statical tools (Histograms) they can be bypassed The lack of honest could be also espensive too.
I hope this helps. This was the rule I used when I was in the Automobile arena.

:bigwave:

Ok, it would appear that the consensus is use common sense and act according to the degree of the problem.
The next dimension:
Would it be possible in an audit to issue a NC for no customer closure on the grounds of requirement to approve changes etc.
If the process is changed as a result of the problem them maybe PPAP would have to be submitted. With out closure can you be certain that the customer has even received the report.

Ok, it would appear that the consensus is use common sense and act according to the degree of the problem.
The next dimension:
Would it be possible in an audit to issue a NC for no customer closure on the grounds of requirement to approve changes etc.
If the process is changed as a result of the problem them maybe PPAP would have to be submitted. With out closure can you be certain that the customer has even received the report.

Of couse, I remember the people of GKN, they used to ask for the PPAP and follow the process during the Audit., In fact I have sufered a NC fot that reason.

Some Customers as NTN have PPAP with rating, and you have to submit a new PPAP if you achive a total number of PPms. Or during the first year the PPAP is interim, these are the new rules wich are comming.

Ok, it would appear that the consensus is use common sense and act according to the degree of the problem.
The next dimension:
Would it be possible in an audit to issue a NC for no customer closure on the grounds of requirement to approve changes etc.
If the process is changed as a result of the problem them maybe PPAP would have to be submitted. With out closure can you be certain that the customer has even received the report.

"Closure" suggests that there is something to close. If the customer is unaware of the problem, there is nothing to close, it seems. On the other hand, if the customer has been notified, and some form of acknowledgement has been received (i.e., you can demonstrate to an auditor that the customer is aware of the problem) and you have made shipments to the customer, that the customer has accepted, after the customer has acknowledged the notice, a good case can be made that the customer has tacitly approved continued shipments.

Having said all that, if there are controlling requirements, such as PPAP, then the customer has the right to assume that those requirements, unless explicitly waived, will be satisfied. So if the requirements say that you must submit PPAP in the event of a process change, and the customer hasn't waived the requirement, then you must submit PPAP. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you can't keep shipping in the interim.