Can anyone out help with a response to a customer complaint.

Background: This is an automotive part that we run millions of and my PPM is less than 1.5. The product is a molded plastic that when its comes off the machine it is vision tested then packed in the finished product tote and is complete and ready for shipment.

The defect is a crushed wire terminal that my vision tester catches, locks the part down in the tester so it can not be removed until a supervisor comes over with a key to unlock the part, mark it with a red paint pen and places it in the red defect tote for quality review.

My customer has a 100% which catches it as well and if they get one they send me a CAR even though they get only get 1 about every million or so of these. The part did not get marked with a red paint pen and was packed. The supervisor/operator did not follow the procedure, however my customer will accept my response of re-training.

No matter what I do the operator/supervisor still have to remove the part and place it in the red totes and people are not infallible so I have no other response to the customer. See attached cell layout. Help!

Can anyone out help with a response to a customer complaint.
No matter what I do the operator/supervisor still have to remove the part and place it in the red totes and people are not infallible so I have no other response to the customer. See attached cell layout. Help!

I would say you have a pretty good process already if your PPM is truly 1.5 As you say, the process is automated to detect failure and does a pretty good job of it. Once the process locks the defective part, it seems you are re-introducing human error into the process which seems to be where your escape lies. What is the possibility of automating the reject process? Instead of locking the defect, why not kick it out of the process and mark it later? There would be no need to restart the process (always a potential problem) and you would take the human factor out.

If you do consider a "kick-out", be sure your system defaults to "seeing" a good part and kicking it forward. The default should always be reject unless a good part is seen.

Good luck.

Dave

Dave,

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately we do not have any opportunity to automate. We have looked at this in the past and the capital investment cost is too great.

This is why I get so frustrated with my customer, my PPM is world class but if they get one defect they send me defect notification and require a formal CAR and do not except human error or re-training as a response. Sometimes there is no other way to classify what happened. The material process flow, testing procedure, containment procedure are all fine, when followed which would be the same for any system procedure. If you don't follow them they do not work.

So why didn't they follow the procedure?

Can anyone out help with a response to a customer complaint.

Background: This is an automotive part that we run millions of and my PPM is less than 1.5. The product is a molded plastic that when its comes off the machine it is vision tested then packed in the finished product tote and is complete and ready for shipment.

The defect is a crushed wire terminal that my vision tester catches, locks the part down in the tester so it can not be removed until a supervisor comes over with a key to unlock the part, mark it with a red paint pen and places it in the red defect tote for quality review.

My customer has a 100% which catches it as well and if they get one they send me a CAR even though they get only get 1 about every million or so of these. The part did not get marked with a red paint pen and was packed. The supervisor/operator did not follow the procedure, however my customer will accept my response of re-training.

No matter what I do the operator/supervisor still have to remove the part and place it in the red totes and people are not infallible so I have no other response to the customer. See attached cell layout. Help!

Unfortunately, you seem to be dealing with an automotive CARbot. This is a system designed such that rationality is not allowed to interfere with decision making. The way that I've approached these things in the past is to put together a cost estimate for making the process mistake-proof (even if it really isn't possible to mistake proof it. This should be sent to the customer, along with a polite letter emphasizing your PPM level (in comparison to the customer's requirements) and telling them you will be happy to implement the changes if the customer is willing to pay for them. The alternative is to just make something up.

So why didn't they follow the procedure?

What do you suppose the difference would have been in the PPM level if the procedure had been followed? If a customer says that say, 40 PPM is the requirement, and your PPM level is 1.5, you've met the requirement.

Why do people always assume that we haven't done our homework when we say that operator error is the source of the problem? It should be obvious in most cases when there's something more at work. People need to actually think about these things before setting their CARbots in motion.

To answer why the person did follow the procedure in my opinion its just pure human error. She is a good operator it wasn't intentional. They work 12 hour shifts and I do believe that fatigue plays a roll in the human error, but again this is out of my control.

The bigger issue what Jim has identified which is what I deal with daily. My customer will place all parts on hold, initiate CAR process for a single part defect even if it’s not a repeat issue.

We can never eliminate the making of this defect (nature of the beast) but I can always catch it. I just can't guarantee the operator won't make a mistake and put it in the wrong tote. And there is no way to satisfy the customer on these.

What do you suppose the difference would have been in the PPM level if the procedure had been followed? If a customer says that say, 40 PPM is the requirement, and your PPM level is 1.5, you've met the requirement.

Why do people always assume that we haven't done our homework when we say that operator error is the source of the problem? It should be obvious in most cases when there's something more at work. People need to actually think about these things before setting their CARbots in motion.

Jim brought up a very good point here. I've come across similar issue in the past with one of our clients. Let's be realistic here. Zero defect is what we all want, but this is not real world in most cases. What we did at the time is met with the client and set an agreed PPM level. We put this as part of their customer specification/contract. Perhaps you can try this, but be diplomatic with your customer when you approach them.

What do you suppose the difference would have been in the PPM level if the procedure had been followed? If a customer says that say, 40 PPM is the requirement, and your PPM level is 1.5, you've met the requirement.

Why do people always assume that we haven't done our homework when we say that operator error is the source of the problem? It should be obvious in most cases when there's something more at work. People need to actually think about these things before setting their CARbots in motion.As usual, Jim goes to the heart of the problem. A customer rep blindingly following a (seemingly) stupid CAR initiation process. After all, 1.5 PPM is much better than the 6-Sigma threshold (3.4 PPM) taunted as process excellence for most manufacturing endeavors.The bigger issue what Jim has identified which is what I deal with daily. My customer will place all parts on hold, initiate CAR process for a single part defect even if it’s not a repeat issue.

We can never eliminate the making of this defect (nature of the beast) but I can always catch it. I just can't guarantee the operator won't make a mistake and put it in the wrong tote. And there is no way to satisfy the customer on these.You can go back to the customer and ask if they are willingly to pay for YOUR capital investment costs to automate the process one step further. While you are it, ask if they would be willing to subsidize the upgrade of your facilities to remain operational after a 9.2 Richter scale earthquake or a meteorite shower striking your ZIP code. When they say no, you introduce them to the concept of RISK and cost effectiveness.:cool:

...Unfortunately we do not have any opportunity to automate. We have looked at this in the past and the capital investment cost is too great...

This may be equivalent to your issue:
We have a robotic weld process with a number of poka yokes that flag defects to the operator. These defects must be manually removed from the fixtures and put into a red tub.

In order to ensure that defect parts are properly handled, each part must pass a sensor on the chute to the tub. The PLC counts to ensure that all suspect parts (sets of 4) are through before allowing the process to continue. The parts are still handled manually, but there is a check in the system to ensure correct disposition.

Since you already have sensors to detect your defect, it may not be too complicated to add a set-up such as I have described.

B.G. Wiehle
:cfingers: