Hello Members...

I've received a customer complaint on the printing defects-discoloration on the label.He has requested 8D report because of they have found 3 pcs defect from 10000 pcs ~ 0.03%. See attached Photo.

In fact , this cosmetic defect is not likely to reduce the usability of the product for its intended purpose such as identification.The end user still able to identify the product & defect is not visible under normal viewing inspection guideline.Moreover, our contract only specify AQL 0.65 , not 100% inspection plan or 100% detection service.

In view of the point above, pls advise your thoughts should I reply my customer that pls UAI the parts & would not accept the 8D report due to the defects still acceptable which low consumer risk as well.Note: My customer is a new SQE who taking care for mechanical commodity. I was thinking to educate this customer abt the cost of doing the business.If you pay peanuts,dun expect you got the six sigma vendor , or you must be sick sigma customer.

Thanks for the advise that how you deal with this kind of invalid customer complaint.:thanx:

Best Regards,
Kelvin

Hello Members...

I've received a customer complaint on the printing defects-discoloration on the label.He has requested 8D report because of they have found 3 pcs defect from 10000 pcs ~ 0.03%. See attached Photo.

In fact , this cosmetic defect is not likely to reduce the usability of the product for its intended purpose such as identification.The end user still able to identify the product & defect is not visible under normal viewing inspection guideline.Moreover, our contract only specify AQL 0.65 , not 100% inspection plan or 100% detection service.

In view of the point above, pls advise your thoughts should I reply my customer that pls UAI the parts & would not accept the 8D report due to the defects still acceptable which low consumer risk as well.Note: My customer is a new SQE who taking care for mechanical commodity. I was thinking to educate this customer abt the cost of doing the business.If you pay peanuts,dun expect you got the six sigma vendor , or you must be sick sigma customer.

Thanks for the advise that how you deal with this kind of invalid customer complaint.:thanx:

Best Regards,
Kelvin

Many companies have painted themselves into a corner by requiring CA every time a defect is discovered, and the same companies often don't allow reasonable people to use their own discretion.

If the "defect" in question really isn't a defect in view of the documented specifications, you're within your rights to diplomatically point that out to the customer, and ask for the CAR to be rescinded. You should inform the customer that you're glad they notified you, but that CA shouldn't be required under the circumstances, and will not be cost-effective. If they balk, you can suggest revisiting the specifications and the pricing.

Hello Members...

I've received a customer complaint on the printing defects-discoloration on the label.He has requested 8D report because of they have found 3 pcs defect from 10000 pcs ~ 0.03%. See attached Photo.

In fact , this cosmetic defect is not likely to reduce the usability of the product for its intended purpose such as identification.The end user still able to identify the product & defect is not visible under normal viewing inspection guideline.Moreover, our contract only specify AQL 0.65 , not 100% inspection plan or 100% detection service.

In view of the point above, pls advise your thoughts should I reply my customer that pls UAI the parts & would not accept the 8D report due to the defects still acceptable which low consumer risk as well.Note: My customer is a new SQE who taking care for mechanical commodity. I was thinking to educate this customer abt the cost of doing the business.If you pay peanuts,dun expect you got the six sigma vendor , or you must be sick sigma customer.

Thanks for the advise that how you deal with this kind of invalid customer complaint.:thanx:

Best Regards,
Kelvin

hmmmm....it appears that the label was not the color that the customer asked for. That makes it nonconforming. It doesn't matter if it is usable or not. If I order a red car and I get an orange one off the line, I am not going to take it.

Now, the place where your arguments come into play would be in determining just how much of a monetary settlement is called for. Do not, I repeat, do not confuse investigating and resolving quality problems (wrong color) with claim resolution ($ exchanged)

If your contract allows for a certain percentage of variance, then you might have a leg to stand on, but in my world, if you don't give the customer what you promised, you are going to have to credit him for what was not right. (and maybe more if you screw up his world bad enough)

Just remember that you decide when to do a corrective action, based on the importance to you and your customers. But, you do (when requested by a customer especially) need to perform some sort of investigation. How can you assess what this problem means without figuring out how, where, why, when it happens?

hmmmm....it appears that the label was not the color that the customer asked for. That makes it nonconforming. It doesn't matter if it is usable or not. If I order a red car and I get an orange one off the line, I am not going to take it.

That is true and I agree. The customer ordered a specific type/color and it did not meet their needs/expectations. It is nonconforming.

Now, the place where your arguments come into play would be in determining just how much of a monetary settlement is called for. Do not, I repeat, do not confuse investigating and resolving quality problems (wrong color) with claim resolution ($ exchanged)

I think the settlement would be upon the supplier to reduce the costs, if it is accepted, by the customer.

If your contract allows for a certain percentage of variance, then you might have a leg to stand on, but in my world, if you don't give the customer what you promised, you are going to have to credit him for what was not right. (and maybe more if you screw up his world bad enough)

I totally agree with this.

Hello Members...

I've received a customer complaint on the printing defects-discoloration on the label.He has requested 8D report because of they have found 3 pcs defect from 10000 pcs ~ 0.03%. See attached Photo.

In fact , this cosmetic defect is not likely to reduce the usability of the product for its intended purpose such as identification.The end user still able to identify the product & defect is not visible under normal viewing inspection guideline.Moreover, our contract only specify AQL 0.65 , not 100% inspection plan or 100% detection service.

In view of the point above, pls advise your thoughts should I reply my customer that pls UAI the parts & would not accept the 8D report due to the defects still acceptable which low consumer risk as well.Note: My customer is a new SQE who taking care for mechanical commodity. I was thinking to educate this customer abt the cost of doing the business.If you pay peanuts,dun expect you got the six sigma vendor , or you must be sick sigma customer.

Thanks for the advise that how you deal with this kind of invalid customer complaint.:thanx:

Best Regards,
Kelvin
There is something wrong somewhere and believe me, instructions for use is an important requirement per regulatory. More important is the customer to you. A frank discussions across will solve it in a simple way. If I were you, I would give a lot of weightage to customer's perception first then to the actual problem. Customer complaints are problems and they can be solved, but get one up in customer satisfaction. Good luck.

I'm old and apparently have lost my inspector's eye due to age and encroaching senility. I don't see where the PP slide helps me understand the distinction between requested color and delivered color.

What was the specification on the customer order for the label color? Did it specify a color on a Pantone scale? What is the difference between the order and the nonconforming labels? What inspection system does the customer use to make the determination? What does the supplier use? Did they agree (Contract Review!) on how to inspect? Was color gradation one of the critical characteristics? What is the cost difference between full-fledged root cause investigation and CA report versus saying, "Oops, sorry! Let me rebate the cost of the nonconforming labels from this shipment and I will add an inspection step to assure no miscolored labels reach you on future deliveries/orders." ?

As others have written, EVERY nonconformance does not necessarily require a full root cause and corrective action process, but bureaucrats within organizations are not normally allowed discretion on gray areas and everything must be black and white (like kindergartens expelling students for bringing rubber "Pirate's of the Caribbean" swords to school as part of a Zero Tolerance policy.) If such is the case with this customer, it might be better to suck it up on this instance, but ensure ALL future contracts contain exculpatory clauses about non-cost-effective re-inspections and root cause/corrective action investigations and reports.

I would agree with the majority of points so far, but do be careful in terming a customer complaint "Invalid". The "Voice of your Customer" is letting you know something is not as they were expecting and although it may appear trivial, it is as valid as any other comment the customer makes.

Your problem may well be easily fixed, but somewhere in your system there may well be an issue in terms of either predicted the failure, preventing it and/or protecting your customer from it (I have swallowed a GM drill down training manual today), but as you have said, contracted acceptance values, although "old hat", may well be your acceptable defence.

Finally, just learn from it. It may cost but what savings can you make from the added knowledge of investigating the issue.

Although it is important to appease the customer, shallow gestures rarely work in enhancing reputation. Be grateful you have this added in sight into your customers expectations, it takes the guesswork and therefore risk out of your process if followed up.

I would agree with the majority of points so far, but do be careful in terming a customer complaint "Invalid". The "Voice of your Customer" is letting you know something is not as they were expecting and although it may appear trivial, it is as valid as any other comment the customer makes.

Your problem may well be easily fixed, but somewhere in your system there may well be an issue in terms of either predicted the failure, preventing it and/or protecting your customer from it (I have swallowed a GM drill down training manual today), but as you have said, contracted acceptance values, although "old hat", may well be your acceptable defence.

Finally, just learn from it. It may cost but what savings can you make from the added knowledge of investigating the issue.

Although it is important to appease the customer, shallow gestures rarely work in enhancing reputation. Be grateful you have this added in sight into your customers expectations, it takes the guesswork and therefore risk out of your process if followed up.

It's easy to agree in general with all of this, but what's missing is that the reality of the situation is probably not what it appears. "The customer" is not a single entity with opinions, perceptions and inviolable standards. The customer is an amalgam of people who might very well have different opinions, perceptions and standards, depending on who you talk to, and in what situation.

In this case, it's quite possible that an inspector or operator noticed what he/she felt might be a problem, and rejected the parts, with documentation. Thus begins a chain of overly-constrained decisions: "ISO says" we need to send these back to the supplier, and open a CAR. No one is allowed to look at the situation rationally. The supplier QA person, who is probably already overburdened with what might be charitably characterized as "non value-added" tasks, realizes that (A) the specified requirements haven't actually been breached; (B) there is no possible cost-effective preventive action that can be taken, and (C) he can't reason with the customer.

Sometimes the "Voice of the Customer" is babbling incoherently, or making patently unreasonable demands. Customers need to explicitly tell their suppliers what's required, and not invoke artificial "corrective" measures when what they get is what they asked for.

It's easy to agree in general with all of this, but what's missing is that the reality of the situation is probably not what it appears. "The customer" is not a single entity with opinions, perceptions and inviolable standards. The customer is an amalgam of people who might very well have different opinions, perceptions and standards, depending on who you talk to, and in what situation.

In this case, it's quite possible that an inspector or operator noticed what he/she felt might be a problem, and rejected the parts, with documentation. Thus begins a chain of overly-constrained decisions: "ISO says" we need to send these back to the supplier, and open a CAR. No one is allowed to look at the situation rationally. The supplier QA person, who is probably already overburdened with what might be charitably characterized as "non value-added" tasks, realizes that (A) the specified requirements haven't actually been breached; (B) there is no possible cost-effective preventive action that can be taken, and (C) he can't reason with the customer.

Sometimes the "Voice of the Customer" is babbling incoherently, or making patently unreasonable demands. Customers need to explicitly tell their suppliers what's required, and not invoke artificial "corrective" measures when what they get is what they asked for.True, but it often requires involving folks high up the food chain in each organization before we reach someone who can step outside of the "constraints" and make a rational decision about what is REALLY needed.

No low level employee in his right mind will alienate ANY customer without the backing of his own top managers. And telling a customer (through channels) that its policy is "wrong-headed" will go a long way toward alienating that customer from top to bottom level.

In business, discretion IS the better part of valor, especially when you are not high on the food chain in either customer or supplier. I have also seen instances where simple-minded SQEs or other low- to mid-level employees have overstepped their bounds and alienated critical suppliers, only to have their heads chopped off by higher ranking folk at the customer when a call comes from a supplier's CEO to their CEO telling him, "You've breached the contract. We're invoking the cancellation clause. Want a new contract at twice the price?" (It happens. I was the supplier CEO who made the call! Actually, it was a purchasing agent who unilaterally decided to extend payment from thirty to ninety days who provoked the phone call.)

It's easy to agree in general with all of this, but what's missing is that the reality of the situation is probably not what it appears. "The customer" is not a single entity with opinions, perceptions and inviolable standards. The customer is an amalgam of people who might very well have different opinions, perceptions and standards, depending on who you talk to, and in what situation.

In this case, it's quite possible that an inspector or operator noticed what he/she felt might be a problem, and rejected the parts, with documentation. Thus begins a chain of overly-constrained decisions: "ISO says" we need to send these back to the supplier, and open a CAR. No one is allowed to look at the situation rationally. The supplier QA person, who is probably already overburdened with what might be charitably characterized as "non value-added" tasks, realizes that (A) the specified requirements haven't actually been breached; (B) there is no possible cost-effective preventive action that can be taken, and (C) he can't reason with the customer.

Sometimes the "Voice of the Customer" is babbling incoherently, or making patently unreasonable demands. Customers need to explicitly tell their suppliers what's required, and not invoke artificial "corrective" measures when what they get is what they asked for.

It quite possibly is the case and I would expect the supplier to conclude this and present a reasonable case to the customer of his conclusions. However, without a detailed knowledge of the fault, the customer or indeed the OP's company and it's relationship with the customer, I cannot assume any such situation.

My point was not that the customer has a single voice and their requirements are always clear and final, but that a complaint, no matter how obscure should not be dismissed as "invalid". If nothing else, the situation you talk about teaches us that the customer is a babbling mess of confusing and sometimes unknown requirements.

If that babbling mess represents a significant portion of our Christmas bonus, then the response we give should be given as such. It's a difficult and delicate situation, but although it maybe easy, I do agree with most of the posts, but the actual response of the OP to the customer has lie with the OP, we are not armed with enough facts. We can only give opinions and I think a reasonable balance is what these threads are for.

I won't go so far as to say there is never an invalid complaint. We see them once in a while. But, in this case, the complaint is not invalid. It may well be that the cost involved in fixing the problem so far outweigh the risks that it is cheaper to pay the claim than to perform any formal corrective actions. That is your decision to make in assessing the complaint. But, it does not make it invalid.

The fact still remains, if you do not do some level of investigaton you will not be able to make the assessment, which leads me right back to my original thought. Do not confuse correction of the problem with figuring out what the problem is. Doing nothing is an action. It may not be a popular choice, but it is an action. You just best know why you chose to do nothing.

When you truly have an invalid complaint, you better couch it in gentle terms. We do this only after our technical personnel have spent time at the customer's facility and can not only identify where the problem is, but also how they might be able to fix it, or where they might turn to to find the information they would need to fix it.

Ok, enough rambling from me.

All makes good sense,
another option is to just go over board.
Invite your customer to a seminar to go through the FMEAs, do a joint audit, VCM mapping and whatever else you can think of, agenda of at least three days with 2 - 3 people from the customer project team invited who will definitely have no time and interest (PM, Design and APQP engineers are good).
Usually they are flattered that you take such a small problem so seriously, but tell the CAR generator to back off, as they cant afford to spend that much time on trivial stuff.
Of course there is always the risk that they will send someone they dont like to you..

hmmmm....it appears that the label was not the color that the customer asked for. That makes it nonconforming. It doesn't matter if it is usable or not. If I order a red car and I get an orange one off the line, I am not going to take it.

Just to clarify.This is not a colour variances issue.If yes , this is absolutely non-conforming.This is more like a cosmetic defect which printing scratches which deemed as acceptance tolorence if we measured it with TAPPI chart.

Black and white aside, there are different angles to look at this problem:

1. Do you need the customer more than they needed you? If you need them more, you just need to be more accommodative, patient and communicate with them in the hope of resolving the disagreement. Market changes and if you find that this little defect had now caused complaints on the customer's side, the best way is to work out a solution acceptable by both sides. On the other extreme end, I had seen new SQEs trying to find fault or remove existing suppliers in the hope of bring their 'friends' into the company.

2. New SQEs who don't really know or understand what they are asked to do. I had seen them rejecting goods (usually cosmetic features) despite the existence of agreed good/bad samples. Sometimes they don't know the limit of their discretionary power. You'll need to talk to powers above him to come in and confirm things. On their own, they will not try to find out from their bosses for fear of looking stupid.

3. Frequent changes of SQEs are a pain in the neck - different people with different interpretations and trying to show how good they are at the expense of the supplier.

All complaints are valid. You simply choose to not like this one. You customer is paying for a product and is entitled to what he pays for; and you admit he has a discoloured label. It is not for you to decide the effect that this might have on his company image.

If you don't like it tell him you don't want his business.

2. New SQEs who don't really know or understand what they are asked to do. I had seen them rejecting goods (usually cosmetic features) despite the existence of agreed good/bad samples. Sometimes they don't know the limit of their discretionary power. You'll need to talk to powers above him to come in and confirm things. On their own, they will not try to find out from their bosses for fear of looking stupid.

Whoa, be careful on that one. Unless things have gone beyond any other action, I would strongly advise against approaching peoples superiors. I mean it's your call, and you will understand the level of competence and experience of the SQE in question, but this approach could seriously isolate them, especially if they do hold themselves as experienced professionals. They may not talk to their superiors for fear of looking stupid, but if you then approach there superiors, what are you doing? Making them look stupid on their behalf? Like I say, depends on the situation but my advice would be to do it gently if at all. Ensure they are CC'd on emails and tend not to directly address them unless absolutely necessary! If a person is responsible for an issue, it really does not feel good for people to jump up the food chain to their bosses!

I make this point because I have seen it happen. A colleague of mine tired of dealing with a customer SQA and went to his boss to seek resolution. This was followed by an extremely peeved phone call and an even more irate email, explaining who was in charge of this issue!

3. Frequent changes of SQEs are a pain in the neck - different people with different interpretations and trying to show how good they are at the expense of the supplier.

I agree a ridiculously high turnover of people can cause confusion and differing standards of opinion. Though this can sometimes be harnessed as a fresh approach. Some fresh eyes, it can help keep you alert and on your toes! Never dismiss the value of a fresh pair of eyes on something you may have become complacent about.

Whoa, be careful on that one. Unless things have gone beyond any other action, I would strongly advise against approaching peoples superiors. I mean it's your call, and you will understand the level of competence and experience of the SQE in question, but this approach could seriously isolate them, especially if they do hold themselves as experienced professionals. They may not talk to their superiors for fear of looking stupid, but if you then approach there superiors, what are you doing? Making them look stupid on their behalf? Like I say, depends on the situation but my advice would be to do it gently if at all.

Yes, I had seen many caught in such a situation. But if one had worked with the client long enough and is worth their salt, one should know how to play their cards, know whom to see and how to get them to help you. If one is new or clueless, then, the choice is limited. I mean these are people skills that you either have it or don't.

Bottom line is, know where you stand - if you want to fight, do it from a position of strength.

Yes, I had seen many caught in such a situation. But if one had worked with the client long enough and is worth their salt, one should know how to play their cards, know whom to see and how to get them to help you. If one is new or clueless, then, the choice is limited. I mean these are people skills that you either have it or don't.

Bottom line is, know where you stand - if you want to fight, do it from a position of strength.

Yes, I tried to convey that in my post, it will depend entirely on the situation/customer.

However, approaching a superior could be a double edged sword, what's to say the superior hasn't already been approached by the SQE or worse still, is driving the need for CA.

Just to clarify.This is not a colour variances issue.If yes , this is absolutely non-conforming.This is more like a cosmetic defect which printing scratches which deemed as acceptance tolorence if we measured it with TAPPI chart.

Cosmetic or color variation...it still did not meet your customer's needs. I strongly feel that you want to take the hit and resolve this the best way you can and if possible, make a contractual agreement with your customer on what is acceptable to their needs.

You might also point out the costs involved in increasing the amount of inspection, which will have to be passed on to someone.

Also, do you have any idea why these labels were off color, and all of the others were not? Maybe an inexpensive improvement would eliminate the chance of any off color labels, at least for that particular reason. Even if the labels are in spec, that is all the customer is really looking for, right?

Jim,
I think you have a valid point. There can be large costs associated with re-inspections. Sometimes the higher-ups on both sides don't think of the magnitude of a corrective action with respect to the actual problem. But I agree that all to often companies strangle themselves with CAR responses to every customer complaint.

Jim,
I think you have a valid point. There can be large costs associated with re-inspections. Sometimes the higher-ups on both sides don't think of the magnitude of a corrective action with respect to the actual problem. But I agree that all to often companies strangle themselves with CAR responses to every customer complaint.

One of the most frustrating things that a quality manager has to deal with is the idea that sometimes we have to bite the bullet and accede to unreasonable customer demands just to be able to get on with our work. One thing that separates good quality managers from the pack is the ability to understand when to put up a fight and when to just let it go and move on. When life as A QM becomes and endless series of tradeoffs and compromises, though, it's a signal that it might be time to move on.

I don't have enough background on your customer or their industry to evaluate it. I also don't have powerpoint on my home PC to be able to read the attachment.

The fact that they ask for an 8D, implies it is an automotive customer. If so, you may find out that you are out of luck in that they may have a general specification which spells out labeling requirements.

The other sucky thing about automotive is the "Zero defects" clause. This may trump your internal AQL standards.

If the complaint is in fact not an issue, write it up as a cosmetic defect that doesn't impact "form, fit or function" on the label. If you have a preventive actions you are doing to improve on them, add them in D7.

Finally, you should reflect on the defect. Maybe it is telling you that the printer is on the way out.

I don't have enough background on your customer or their industry to evaluate it. I also don't have powerpoint on my home PC to be able to read the attachment.

Murphy,

For what it's worth, :cool: you can download PowerPoint Viewer for free.

Look here for information (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=powerpoint+viewer&btnG=Search).

Stijloor.

Cosmetic or color variation...it still did not meet your customer's needs. I strongly feel that you want to take the hit and resolve this the best way you can and if possible, make a contractual agreement with your customer on what is acceptable to their needs.

Yup, I agree. It comes down to customer perception of whether their requirements have been met (or not), and hence clause 8.2.1. Pain in the butt? Yes, at times. Fair? Not always. Sometimes they're not right, not clear, unreasonable, etc. etc.

I'd be more inclined to think of it as a 'complaint we have an issue/disagree with' rather than an 'invalid' one. A complaint is a complaint.

But yes, it is definitely your right to consider what you do about it, and I'd avoid any system that strapped you into full CA mode for every complaint. That would be shooting yourself in the foot - I'm always in favour of leaving in the flexibility for intelligent decision-making.

There can be large costs associated with re-inspections. Sometimes the higher-ups on both sides don't think of the magnitude of a corrective action with respect to the actual problem. But I agree that all to often companies strangle themselves with CAR responses to every customer complaint.

Yes, only too true.

One of the most frustrating things that a quality manager has to deal with is the idea that sometimes we have to bite the bullet and accede to unreasonable customer demands just to be able to get on with our work. One thing that separates good quality managers from the pack is the ability to understand when to put up a fight and when to just let it go and move on.

Also a very good point.