We all get surveys from our customers on what they require from us, but is there someone out there that has made up a survey that you sent to your customer to ask what they thought of your quality performance, ie: Customer Satisfaction feed back. If any one has this in text form, I would really appreciate getting a copy of it. THANKS !

I don't have one off hand, but I've seen questions like:

1. Have you had to contact our customer service in the last year? How would you rate our response?

2. Have deliveries been on time and intact (no damage)?

3. What can we do to improve our relationship?

Etc - just typical questions. Look at what customers ask you in their questionaires and I'm sure you'll come up with some ideas specific to your company and product.

[This message has been edited by Lassitude (edited 26 July 1999).]

George,

Creating a Customer Survey is generally a long and challenging process. I would suggest that you get key folks in your organization together and discuss an approach on how to create one that will suit your organization. By trying to adapt someone else's survey, you may miss some key opportunities to discover things about your customers.

This is not to say that you can't adapt some basic questions as Lassitude lists above. Some are just that but just as important as the one's you will create. Since you are the authorities or experts on your product, you may have a pretty good idea of what questions you need to ask. For instance, what does your organization see as being the key driving factors for your business? Create questions around these factors. Since these factors vary from organization to organization, so will the format and question base of Customer Surveys. Yours needs to be specific to your needs.

Funny thing about perception, they are sometimes wrong. So questions you ask today (based on what you thought was important) may not make it into the revised survey. You may think people find so-and-so important, only to find that it is trivial. How many project are built about trivial items? Plenty! Also, what distinguishes a loyal customer from a satisfied customer? Find this out, tap into it immediately.

Anyway, I hope that I haven't muddled up the works. Back to the group...

Regards,

Kevin

Question for everyone, where can I get any information for SSS?

Supplier Satisfaction Survey – I would have to say that it is somewhat unexplored in these parts, but a good idea.

I don’t know of a ‘canned’ product, but you should be able to create your own with some crossfunctional involvement. For instance, I would say that the organizational ‘suppliers’ to your suppliers are probably Design Engineering, Purchasing, and Quality (there could be more depending on the level of detail you pursue or from the way your organization is structured, i.e. Accounts Payable). Since the Supplier is the ‘customer’ in this example, what is it that your customer (the supplier) values? Here are a few suggestions:

- Correctly stated terms, conditions, and requirements on a PO
- Correct revision drawings and specifications sent with the PO
- Proper lead-time for acquisition of raw materials and for processing
- Complete or accurate CAD files for tool/mold design
- Accurate “contact’ information (names, titles, departments, phone numbers, fax numbers)
- Returned Goods Authorization prior to returning goods
- Prompt and accurate payment according to terms & conditions
- Feedback on Quality levels submitted (PPM defective perhaps)

I am sure others here might be able to suggest other things. The key is to make some educated decisions about what to include in a survey based on the needs identified by the customer and for the needs of the organization. I would recommend that you find a book on how to create a survey and use it as a guide to develop your survey (neutral language in asking questions, open ended questions vs. questions the supplier will rate on a scale). Perhaps your survey will not be written. What questions will you ask? Who will ask them? Who will compile and report the data?

There are a couple of books that I have read that give advice as how to create a Customer Satisfaction Survey that can help you to develop your Supplier Satisfaction Survey. “Measuring Customer Satisfaction” by Bob Hayes ISBN 0-87389-362 and my favorite, “Improving Your Measure of Customer Satisfaction” by Terry Vavra ISBN 0-87389-4057. Both books will guide you through the survey design.

Regards,

Kevin

Although supplier satisfaction is a good idea it would be very low on the priority list. In my view the supplier should be doing a customer satisfaction survey on me.

Suppliers are to be developed and helped. What would I do if a supplier sent me a report that noted I was a "bad" customer? I know what I would do.

ASD...

I believe that a supplier satisfaction survey is a great idea. I never had a chance to implement one back when I spent all of my time as a Supplier Quality Engineer. I lost count of how many "supplier problems" were actually the fault of my company (customer). Examples include:

- Late delivery of packaging. True cause - manufacturing never told purchasing (or supplier) that production level was doubling. Supplier was not psychic.

- Supplier built parts wrong. True cause - engineering supplied incorrect print.

- Parts not manufactured when buyer called to check on late delivery. True cause - buyer never sent PO.

- Electronic boards failed. True cause - assembly workers dropped, broke wires, shorted out, ran over with hi-lo, etc. Plant manager told them to send back for credit anyway.

I could go on. 99% of the time suppliers will just accept the blame, fix the problem and raise the price on the next job to cover it. Biggest problem is that the customer never fixes their bad systems, and therefore repeats the errors over and over (we did not have a quality system implemented, and management would not support one until "we had time"). Unless someone at the customer is watching for the true root cause, things never get better.

Actually I will be finishing a paper/presentation this weekend on this topic to present at the ASQ Customer Supplier Division conference in Louisville in November. If anyone else has ideas let me know - I will of course give credit where it is due.

Tom



[This message has been edited by tomvehoski (edited 10 August 2001).]

Do you really think that the customer really cares about supplier satisfation?

Let's get real. If the supplier does not produce an acceptable product, they will be a past supplier.

Al,

I would have to agree that most customers do not care. It has been this way for so long that most organization only do "inch deep, mile wide" thinking as opposed to "mile deep, inch wide". As Tom points out in his post, many problems are the fault of the Customer and not supplier oriented.

A classic example here at our facility is with our failure to get production level drawings to the supplier. This occurs about 10% of the time. The result is that our supplier produces tooling and parts to preproduction drawings. The effects are wrong parts with wrong features, production delays, and missed product launches (promise dates to our customer), and early obsolescence of remaining parts (because we reworked the wrong revision parts at cost to us and scrapped a few along the way). I am sure there are more costs associated. So now we are in a bind, need replacement, and must disrupt our supplier's (do a dare say, partner) production planning to have them quickly make tooling adjustments, acquire replacement raw material, interrupt another job running for another customer (whom they'll have to explain a delay to), change over, run parts and ship them to us at premium freight. Cost, cost, cost. I know I am not a 'mile deep' but the point is made.

In a System, we must rely on each component. In this way, we must view our relationships much differently than we have in the past. Hardships are felt across boundaries as are our successes. We are one team.

Additionally, the cost for moving production of a component from one supplier to another is costly. It is better to work out issues than it is to change sources (obviously, this approach will not work every time). Build rapport and loyalty. Work together with other components (customers and supplier) to reduce cost, minimize variation, and improve quality.

Well, just a Monday opening thought.

Regards,

Kevin

Hello all,

Very interesting thread. About 2 weeks ago, I visited a potential new customer, and went through their supplier education meeting. This customer was having so many "supplier" problems that were not related to the supplier, they began actually tracking how many of the problems were their own (i.e. wrong print revision, missing info on P.O., etc.). When they started this program, they were somewhere around 80/20, that is 80% of the problems were their own.

But I don't know how many suppliers would be willing to respond to a SSS, for fear of loosing business. I know we wouldn't want to answer one...even for our "good" customers.

Just my one cent worth (ya know, bad economy and all, gotta pinch them when I can)...LOL

CarolX

I think the whole issue described by many of you in this thread, is why the V2000 9004 info under 8.2.4 c tries to steer us into addressing supplier communication and partnering of services. It is important and by starting to build the culture now, maybe by the next revision it will be an accepted business practice.

Here is another senario:
Say you have critical components (wigits and wingdings) coming from different suppliers that are needed to run a particular product (thing-a-ma-bob). You're trying to minimize inventory and are depending on JIT ordering. If for whatever reason the wingits are delayed, having the wingdings on hand does you no good. However if by supplier 'partnering' you open the door for communication (buy-in is the biggest challenge IMHO) maybe the supplier of wingits has 500 (which can supply a full days production run) but not the 2500 ordered. By understanding the customer (your) needs, and possible alternative options awareness in case of emergency...You can keep a production line going. Also your supplier would (hopefully) be more communicative in turn.

Recently we hve undergone our second periodic audit for our ISO 9000:2000 standard. This time the auditor found a nonconformity in the method of computing the inputs of customer satisfaction survey. I will briefly explain our method of survey and how we arrive at the results.
There are 5 parameters on which we take suggestions from our customers. These are:
1. Packaging of product
2. Quality of product
3. Time taken in resolving customer complaints
4. our reps visit frequency to the customers
5. on time delivery

We calculate the points and arrive at some percentages on each parameter listed above. Then we take the average of all 5 and arrive at an average percentage value which we call as Customer satisfaction index.

Now the NC the auditor pointed out is that we can arrive at value of even 90% and at the same time the main and important parameter of Quality of Product may be very less which defeats the whole purpose of the excercise.

ANY COMMENTS?

Originally posted by Uteesh Dhar
Now the NC the auditor pointed out is that we can arrive at value of even 90% and at the same time the main and important parameter of Quality of Product may be very less which defeats the whole purpose of the excercise.
ANY COMMENTS?

I don't get it! can you elaborate on the 90% Customer satisfaction rating vs the NC involving Product Quality? The Standard asks that you measure Customer Satisfaction. Maybe I'm confused, but I do not see what one has to do with the other. Obviously, you want to Continually Improve your Customer Satisfaction as well as the number of Product nonconformances. But you also want to Continually Improve all your other process measurables.
As I said, I don't get it!:rolleyes: :ko: :smokin:

Energy, we are supposed to measure our customers' perception of whether we have met their requirements. Meeting requirements is "quality" . What the auditor was trying to say is that regardless of whether the customer thinks the packaging is nice or whether the reps have to visit a customer many times to resolve issues (or maybe they're visiting to take orders, I'm not sure), or whether internally the company is good at resolving complaints,...the thing that is supposed to be measured is the degree with which the customer thinks his requirements were met.

If you factor in all the fluff (as mentioned above), you have diluted the important aspect: Quality of product and other client requirements. The gold wrapping paper and the speed with which the company handled your returned product (which did not meet your specs) may earn high marks but they aren't typically what the customer has expressed are his requirements. (Unless it's Godiva chocolates and then yes, I want the gold wrapping!)Plus, the customer doesn't care to know anything about your customer complaint resolution skills - they want to remain blissfully ignorant!

I think that the other measureables have their place and shouldn't be done away with (after all, they provide the vital "communication" that must be established and they provide good information to be used for continual improvement), but I agree with the auditor that their results can skew the intent of the clause: the customer's perception of whether we have met their requirements. I do not agree that the quality of the product is the only thing to measure though.

Perhaps the best thing to do is also include on the survey a way for them to communicate if it is an important aspect to them. If they mark that the product packaging is great, but they also mark that it really wasn't important to them, then the score is not included in your cust. satisfaction score. If they mark that meeting delivery schedule is important to them and they have graded it lowly, then it is included. In other words, a way to give weight to the responses that will give a better indication of customer satisfaction. Only count what is important to the customer.

I think that the time taken to resolve complaints needs to be moved completely out of the mix, for the reasons above. It is a measure of how the company performs when itdoesn'tmeet customer's expectations. Use that measureable somewhere else.

All MHO. ;)

Uteesh,
Have you read 'Handbook of Customer Satisfaction Measurement' by Nigel Hill ?

I found it to be an excellent reference for Questionnaire Design, Analysis of Responses, calculation of Customer Satisfaction Index and Performance Metrix
-Atul.

Lucinda,

I got it. Number 2. is Quality of Product. The other four catagories may dilute the end result. Duh!:bonk: I'll have to make sure that I leave that off our any Customer Survey questionaire. Thanks.:ko: :smokin:

Uteesh,
As far as I can tell, if you've got a target value for each parameter as well the overall CS Index figure, take action when values are below target and plan (as apporpriate) for the continuous improvement of the parameter scores, then you are fine.

Sure the CS Index can mask individual low scores and should only be used as a general indicator, but (as I've tried to say) provided you are assessing each parameter you're OK.

I think it demonstrates considerable thought in looking at customer feedback and surveys, and should be applauded and encouraged by your auditor not trodden on!

I think the auditor is correct in pointing out that your method of surveying your customers may not actually give you a clear idea of their satisfaction if the questionnaire leads them down a certain path.

Your first question on your survey might well be to ask your customers what the most important factors of the product and service that you provide are most important to them, and to give them some kind of ranking. Then you might ask how you are seen as performing against these factors. This could be a very simple but poweful questionnaire.

With regard to factual based decision making, how did the auditor determine that product quality was in fact the most important issue to your customers ?

I think Dave Mullins is on the right track here.
I wouldn't question your choices of questions, but you need a more detailed analysis of the results. I would suggest finding average, range and mean of the responses. Then set minimum acceptable values. You could even set different minimums depending on the perceived criticality of the issues. This analysis wouldn't take much time, and it would give you a much clearer picture of how you are doing.

Good Luck

James

Further to James suggestion.
(for statistically naive management)
For the Quality Dept KPIs for one company I was with I introduced coloured backgrounds to the monthly performance graph for each indicator.

Graphs can sometimes be confusing to managers, and statistical limits beyond their comprehension. We assigned a target value (based on history and strategic goals) for each KPI. The colour of the background of the chart was then based on a set of rules.
BLUE = Excellent
GREEN = Satisfactory
YELLOW = 3months of declining scores (but still above target - indicating a possible trend)
RED = Score below target

This allows managers to immediately recognise when they need to take action.

James is also correct about the range of results, which may necessitate a rule in your procedures where a corrective action is raised whenever a sub-target score is received for any parameter (I'm talking any individual survey result here - so it's very much an individual choice about when to require documented Corrective Action).

As you can see there are lots of ways to address these things, and the improvements you can make in presentation, analysis and use of information is endless.

PS - even your website photo is very serious.

Don't let auditors tread on your creativity!

The standard does not tell you how to calculate customer satisifaction. What ever methods you have determined to use as long as you follow them should be fine. sounds like the auditor is consulting and may be trying to help you make your QMS better. I would have questioned them to show me in the standard,if the gave you a CAR.

David

I would much rather management learnt basic statistics, and how to read a control chart. If that is beyond their comprehension then how on earth did they get into the positions they are in.

The format you described has no basis on statistical theory, hence any actions taken to improve the system based on the data you presented will undoubtedly fail.

I would have questioned them to show me in the standard,if the gave you a CAR.

The auditor may have been questioning the effectiveness of the measurement rather than the "letter of the law". Admittedly it is a grey area.
However, judging by the response from this community, the system can be improved, and without to much extra work.

James

Originally posted by energy


I don't get it! can you elaborate on the 90% Customer satisfaction rating vs the NC involving Product Quality? The Standard asks that you measure Customer Satisfaction. Maybe I'm confused, but I do not see what one has to do with the other. Obviously, you want to Continually Improve your Customer Satisfaction as well as the number of Product nonconformances. But you also want to Continually Improve all your other process measurables.
As I said, I don't get it!:rolleyes: :ko: :smokin:

As Uteesh hasn't elaborated on the NC involving the 90% Customer Satisfaction, we're just guessing what the NC is. So, in spite of Lucinda's excellent post and because of other contrary posts, I stand by my original inquiry. Product nonconformances have a place to be measured and improved. Customer Satisfaction parameters have a place to be measured and improved. It really doesn't matter what the questions are. You are merely measuring the Customer's "Perception" of your Organization. Boy, this is fun!:bonk: :smokin:

Customer should be asked to assign 'Weightage' ( scale of 1 to 10) for each parameter. (Lucinda mentioned this) Scores should have the same rating scale ( 1 to 10). Each of the parameters in the survey can contain more than one question. So the average score for a parameter would be the average of scores obtained for all questions.

With this data, you can simply plot a Weightage(importance - x axis) Vs Scores (performance- y axis) scatter. This is easy to understand without any great knowledge of statistics. The graph can be divided into 4 quarants:
1. High Weightage, High Score : OK
2. High weightage, Low Score : Needs improvement
3. Low weightage, High score : Overkill
4. Low weightage, Low Score : ??

-Atul.

Originally posted by Atul Khandekar
This is easy to understand without any great knowledge of statistics.

Good explanation, but Product Quality as a measurable in the Survey, merely asks what the Customer's perception of the product is. The Customer may not have had to return or reject the product. If he did, that's in the CA domain. The customer may want to convey an idea for improving the product to more or less suit his needs. Because of this, what kind of NC can an Auditor issue questioning the score on Quality of Product when it's a Customer's PERCEPTION of you as a Supplier. I would like to know how the NC was written, what Corrective Action (if any) would a company take if really isn't just about Product Quality. Like, please select one of the following that best decribes our product:
A. Excellent
B. Better than average
C Average
D. below average
E. Sucks

If there were no returns or rejects and the customer says C. or E., how can an Auditor say "it defeats the purpose of the exercise?" Maybe, I still don't get it.:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Energy,

perception is exactly what we are supposed to measure. To go further, perception of product quality since we are measuring perception of meeting their requirements and requirements=quality.

Why does everyone want to fight over a valid observation by the auditor? Simply add the weighting to the findings and you have a usable method of assessing customer satisfaction.

Just because the standard doesn't tell you how to measure customer satisfaction, doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of developing a system that achieves the goal. You are supposed to be capable of doing it on your own, without the standard spelling everything out in black and white for you.

Flexibility of method does not mean you can use the argument "the standard doesn't say that" as an excuse for everything.

Next you'll be saying that if I wanted to measure my customer satisfaction by how many times they take me golfing, that it would be valid!:rolleyes:

Let's not lose sight of what is trying to be accomplished. Uteesh's system needs improvement to make it work the way it should.

I don't see anything wrong with averaging everything to get an "overall satisfaction rating", As Long As: you are looking at the individual categories to prioritize your improvement projects.

If you can show that your average is 90% satisfaction, but that you have identified the category of product quality is 70% and thus put an action plan together to improve product quality you should be ok. If, on the other hand, you say that customer satisfaction is 90%, and that is your goal so no improvements need be made, you aren't really meeting the requirement. Use that 90% as a baseline and as you improve your "problem areas" your average should go up. I know this has pretty much been said in other posts, but it is pretty important.

I might add an aside from my own experience in QS land: We did surveys that were pretty similar to the one described. We scored 4.7 out of 5 for an average. the only "low" score was price. The auditor was very concerned about this and I could tell that he was really wanting to give us a nonconformance. I pointed out that any customer in his right mind would complain about price (Just come with me to buy groceries and I'll show you complaining about price!) and then showed him in the trade rags what the average selling price was and what ours was (ours was lower). That pretty much put an end to any more discussion.

The moral of the story, you don't always have to do something about every "low score". It all hinges on the severity of the problem, the impact on the customer, AND the impact on your business. It doesn't make sense to run yourself out of the market.

Originally posted by Carl

Lucinda,

I am not arguing over a valid observation, Because according to the facts as presented, the observation is NOT valid. (Actually I am not arguing at all, just giving my opinion)
I meant arguing with the assessor. Saying to him "show me where it says that in the standard". And the ob was valid as several besides myself have stated.

If he had a finding in 8.2.4 Monitoring and Measurement of product, or 8.3 control of non-conforming product because non-conforming product were not being identified or measured, that would be appropriate. Even if you did not mention product quality at all on the satisfaction survey, I would agree with a finding being initiated. He may have a finding, but the customer satisfaction survey is not it........While I agree with you that an intelligent QA Manager would have a measure of product quality, this particular instance would indicate the finding was unacceptable.

Actually the customer satisfaction survey and the way the results were calculated to come up with the CS score is exactly it. This has nothing to do with the company measuring actual product quality - this has to do with the customer giving his opinion of the product quality. Where anyone could get the idea that we were talking about actual measurement of product and whether it is nonconforming or not is beyond me. You are correct (as well as others) that those measures are shown elsewhere and the auditor would not look to a survey for them. BUT this is not about that. This is about the customer satisfaction survey. Forget nonconforming product.

Maybe you can't use data saying how many times you took them golfing is an indication of satisfaction, but I bet they will score the survey higher proportianlly!
Yes, you are right. But my proposal was the opposite of this...:smokin:

Originally posted by Lucinda
And the ob was valid as several besides myself have statedOh Boy! Now you've done it!:biglaugh:

Are you with the apples or the oranges?

Start over. Uteesh's post. Remember? I can ask any questions I want in my survey. No auditor can question my results, unless I use that data to answer a question about product n/c trends. For that, we go to the CA System. :frust: C'mon, Girl!:smokin: :ko:

Uteesh said:
We calculate the points and arrive at some percentages on each parameter listed above. Then we take the average of all 5 and arrive at an average percentage value which we call as Customer satisfaction index.
Now the NC the auditor pointed out is that we can arrive at value of even 90% and at the same time the main and important parameter of Quality of Product may be very less which defeats the whole purpose of the excercise.
IMHO the auditor is objecting to the way the 'final index' is calculated. If you average ALL parameters, it is possible to get a 90% even when an important parameter has a low score. If you really want to improve on all parameters, they need to be separately tracked through the Importance Vs Performance matrix and not averaged together.

I'm not sure if an NC can be justified in this case. In any case the NC cannot involve actual Product Quality. There are other places to look for it (or lack of it) than a satisfaction survey.

-Atul.

Results are to be used as a measure of the performance of the QMS - as stated in the standard. Only the "method" of use is determined by the organization, not the reason.

The information to be monitored is client's perception of having customer requirements met.

(Requirements=quality of product=Product Quality!)

To continue the dumbspeak: Results of the monitoring methods are used to measure the performance of the QMS in meeting the requirements of the customer.

If the customer's requirements aren't met (according to customer), the QMS is not working. This is one of your QMS process measurables, hello?

Yes, there are things other than *reliability of product, *attractiveness of product *product design for purpose, etc. that are important to a client. But overall, everything that is a component of your product is your product! Not just the tangible deliverable that is put into their hands. The service that you provide is also a component of the overall product that you produce.

I'm detecting a train of thought that only the hard tangible is the "product" at work here. I disagree.

Everything that a client requires is the quality aspect of the "product" you deliver to them. If that means that the item must be able to be ordered online, or that the supplier is ISO certified, whatever is required makes up the customers' requirements.

Meeting those requirements is the measure of quality. Handling the entire transaction can be the Product if the customer has requirements that go beyond the physical component.

I'm not daft; I think that Uteesh's category of Product Quality was referring to the fitness of the physical product,and not the way I'm trying to convey here.

But that is the rub. I'm seeing two trends of thought here: 1) that quality has to do with the old "inspection" "nonconforming" "white lab coat" mentality rather than the way the standard uses the term and 2) that there is a focus on a physical product being the only requirement.

What Uteesh has done is used Product Quality as referring strictly to the physical product(and I apologize if I have this wrong Uteesh!) and then taken all the other components that may or may not relate to a customer's requirements (packaging, delivery,etc.) and tossed them into a pot together.

In actuality, Product Quality (ie. how well the customer's requirements were met) is not just this one category, but could also comprise one or all of the other elements on the survey!

I offer that the way to actually measure Product Quality is first to define with the customer what his req's are (with the weighting scale), and then look at the responses.

Again, I'm not daft. The auditor probably didn't think about it this way. He probably was looking for the customer's measure of the *attractiveness*ease of use*fitness for function*reliability*value for money...kind of "quality" of the "put it in my hands" product.

And he still would have been right.

Because Uteesh has no way to show that the other categories conprise a requirement in the eyes of the customer. And that is all we are measuring.

1: XXX consistently meets customer scheduling/delivery requirements.
2: XXX is responsive to schedule changes.
3: XXX consistently ships quality product.
4: XXX is responsive to customer quality concerns.
5: XXX is responsive to delivery concerns.
6: XXX meets your packaging requirements.

I don't remember where I got this, but it mentions
Quality Product Let's say the combined score is a 30. (5 points per topic) Picture the right side of the survey with selections of 1 through 5. 5 being the best.
Out of 25 customer responses they average out to 22. The next time we would like to see an increase beyond 22. We are measuring Customer Satisfaction. That's it. That's all the standard wants you do in this area. Of course, it's a springboard for other actions if it isn't positive. Not you or any auditor is going to make a case for a NC because Product Quality is one of the topics. Now, if my Customer Complaints or PPM or other objectives indicate that the product is inferior and continues to slip, write it up. That's ineffective Corrective Action just for starters. I think the Auditor is wrong in Uteesh's case. But, what do I really know? We aren't registered yet. :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

I cannot see how an assessor can issue a finding on the way you choose to present your information as long as you have it documented. The only way I can see a finding in this area is to do nothing, do not determine how to obtain and use the information, do not follow through with the findings (measurement, analysis, and improvement). The nonconformance as state by Uteesh does not point to any of those, therefore, no nonconformance.

Maybe it's time for a Zoloft with a little 'possum comfort food? I see where Lucinda is coming from, but, given the information that we have I think she's reaching (just as I think the assessor was).

Maybe Uteesh can shed a little more light on the picture, are we missing a piece of the puzzle?

Originally posted by Carl
Customer requirements are ANYTHING that the customer CONTRACTS for. ...
Customer satisfaction is ONE of the measurements to be used as stated in 8.2.2. NOT the ONLY measurement...
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but if you have no specific section of the standard that you can state that is not being met, I have to believe you might not be as up on the standard as you should be...
My opinion is that the Auditor wrote an NC aginst 8.2.2 Customer satisfaction when Uteesh clearly has evidence that he DOES meet the requirements of the standard.

Carl, my standard lists 8.2.2 as Internal Audit. I believe you are referring to 8.2.1. No matter.
8.2.1 refers to monitoring information relating to customer perception as to whether the org has met customer requirements.

It is the only measure in this paragraph. This is the paragraph we are discussing, not other paragraphs within the standard which may provide measures of the QMS, so let's not get offtrack.

Also, my 9000:2000 doesn't list a definition for requirements that says a contract is necessary. In fact, it allows for "generally implied" and "obligatory".

Uteesh has not demonstrated that he is monitoring information relating to the customer's perception of whether his org has met their requirements, because he hasn't defined within the tool (the survey) what the implied or obligatory requirements were in the eyes of the customer. Babadaboom. 8.2.1 Failure to provide evidence that values obtained from customer relate to perceived requirements.

Without adequately isolating Product Quality (which in its proper sense would be an inclusive term referring to everything that the customer required), he has failed to provide the one piece of information that this clause requires. The score that he is deriving is polluted with information regarding how well the customer feels that Uteesh's org handles the situation when the product is unacceptable (totally off the mark in measuring ability to provide the product in the first place which is what is supposed to be measured here) and other trivial bits.

The trivial bits are nice to know and track in order to improve those processes in the company.
They are not measures of whether the customer thinks his requirements have been met. [b] Unless [b] Uteesh provides a way for the customer to communicate that they were a requirement.
Meeting requirements=product quality.

Only the Product Quality portion of his survey is obviously, without a question, applicable to this clause. And it's values are not what he is using to kick off his CA. He is using a totalled score that includes other things.

Take a breath. Read the standard. Spend some time contemplating what I've said. Give me the benefit of the doubt and then read 9001 and 9000 again. And then read Uteesh's post again. If we were yakking this out over some suds, it would be easier to communicate. The written word is hard and I realize that I may not be making my point very well.

Please don't suggest that I'm not as "up" on the standard as I need to be. This is a friendly discussion that is supposed to be exploring intent and application of the standard. I really don't want to trade personal barbs over a difference of opinion.

And besides, I'll sic my pet shark onto you!:)

And he's off again.
If he starts talking about MIL standards we'll know it's C O N S C I E N C E for sure!

Like C, he says a few correct things littered amongst a plethora of small-minded, nasty abuse.

He clearly suffers from Zackary syndrome.

Look, I could almost just as easily argue the other side. And don't think that in my own mind I haven't, because an opinion should be formed after arguing both sides within yourself, whether you use information provided by others or whether you provide it yourself.

If I had a system like Uteesh's and really thought that my system was great and accomplished what the standard asked for, then I would argue. And I would twist words and insert my interpretation into the standard and make it plausible to the auditor.

If I had a system like Uteesh's and recognized that the auditor had a good point, strictly interpreted as a noncon or not, I would look to improve what I'm doing.

Despite curses and calls to eliminate "interpretation" and to make the standard "interpret proof" and holier-than-thou, interpretation is there. Look at how we can pull definitions out of 9000 and substitute them into the paragraphs of the standard and yet still deny that this is what the paragraph means. It's because of the way the words are strung together. Sometimes it's hard to follow the thread and so you must look for intent instead. I think that we can all agree on the intent of each clause, can't we?

This auditor has taken the words, the strict words, and applied them against the intent of the clause. And found the system lacking.

Conformance isn't just about having the pieces in place. It's about using them for the intended purpose. And using them in an effective QMS. And proving the effectiveness of the QMS through the application of the information. If you don't do this, then you are ignoring more than just this one clause.

Like I said, I could find a way to say "Uteesh, if you are "monitoring" what your customers' perceptions are of Product Quality (even if when they read that term they aren't thinking of it the same way that ISO means) then you are doing what the standard says to do, even if the real measure isn't being gathered, even if the intent isn't being met."

I could do this because I also can ask "where does it say that this is what it means and tells me how to do it?".

Yes, I can do this. Because I'm a bubblehead:biglaugh:

Lucinda,

I agree with everything you said. Shouldn't there be background music for that post?:biglaugh: The only problem is saying that Uteesh wasn't using the data properly. We don't know that. We do know that an Auditor issued a NC against his method of collecting Customer data. He's wrong.:agree: :ko: :smokin:

David, (I’m not going to misspell your last name again)

I sense you are engaging in “Swings and Roundabouts”. Hope my Aussie language doesn’t confuse you. Before Carl, there was you and, sometimes me who engaged in rather antagonistic posting. It’s OK as Marc has put it. Like, “ Let’s keep the personal barbs to a minimum.” The big difference between you and Carl is that Carl infuses his passionate posts with facts. The facts are there to be disputed. Insulting remarks with no facts behind them indicates, to me, that the insults are more important than the topic. Your last lengthy posts contained Carl’s quotes and some screwy comments from you, no facts. You know, the thread about being honest? Carl left you with the question “Tell me where I’m bending the rules”. You have not replied. Most likely because you couldn’t remain calm enough to find the answer. Instead you have jumped in here to take a shot at your “nemesis” across the seas. I look at it for what it is. If you can’t beat him with facts, throw the insults. I’m not impressed. I’m disappointed. Your posts are usually well written and contain information that I, for one, find important. Maybe you should lower the seat on that bicycle and get your head out of the clouds. Remember, while opposite poles attract, like poles repel. No offense, to Carl or you. I enjoy both your posts.
But, now you have another one you can assail if you so choose. I hope not. If so, bring it on! I can handle it.

Carl, I'm not sure about the cryptic Mil Stds, but Zachary Disease is when your face looks Zachary like my a--! Just a guess.

:ko: :smokin:

From the minimal amount of info in the original post, I gotta say the auditor was out of line issuing a N/C. The method used may not be the most effective, but it is what works for them, and that is what it is all about. Use what works for you within the requirements of the standard.

CarolX

This thread has some very intersting reading! I have just began creating our system of evaluating our Customer's satisfaction and have gathered lots of useful tips from you all. I'm at the point now where I'm trying to create our "Customer Satisfaction Survey". The purpose of doing this is to determine how well do we meet the Customers requirements? Well to do this did you provide them a quality product to their specifications? This you could ask in a very short and simple 2 or 3 question survey.

What methods have you all used? What type of questions? Is anyone doing something different to satisfy this part of the standard other than Customer Surveys? Is there an easier way to do this? Without having to create this survey and then submit to the customer for completion. Truth be known, most of the surveys you send out probably aren't going to be returned completed. So are we really getting a true determination of their satisfaction?

I dont think assessors will be too impressed if you base your understanding of customer satisfaction purely on the results of a satisfaction survey. Equally to base this understanding purely on customer complaints is also flawed. A survey is just one tool that gives you an indication, but must be considered in light of other sources of data on customer satisfaction, such as complaints, repeat business, etc.

Originally posted by M Greenaway
I dont think assessors will be too impressed if you base your understanding of customer satisfaction purely on the results of a satisfaction survey. Equally to base this understanding purely on customer complaints is also flawed. A survey is just one tool that gives you an indication, but must be considered in light of other sources of data on customer satisfaction, such as complaints, repeat business, etc.


:bonk: Didn't think about it like that, but yes we do cover customer complaints at our Management Review meetings as we will also start covering the results of these surveys. So, are you suggesting compiling a customer satisfaction system that combines the results of the surveys with any customer complaints to get your "determined" customer satisfaction level? I haven't progressed very far with the survey nor the formula in which to grade their level of satisfaction. At this point I'm just searching for other opinions and methods used before making a decision on which method would be best for my company.

I'm also open to hear opinons and questions used by other companies on these surveys as JRKH has also identified in another thread called "Survey Says".

Yes I think you should use a variety of methods to determine overall what the level of customer satisfaction is. Surveys are good in that they are an attempt to actually talk to the customer himself, but unfortunately people hate to fill them in, and will probably only do so when they have a real axe to grind. But it would be unsafe to assume that those who didnt fill in the survey were reasonably satisfied.

Could you suggest any other variety of methods to use to moniter the customer's perception other than these surveys? Keep in mind, our company only has about 30 employees with about 10 customers. Our return rate is very minimul maybe about1 to 3 returns a year. And if a customer has a complaint, these are not documented in any way and they may talk with a number of people depending on the problem. They may talk with the Prod. Manager or Engineering Manager or maybe even the President or VP of Operations. The only time customer complaints are documented is if the product is actually returned (i.e. Quality completed a Returned Product Checklist.).

So if I'm going to do these surveys. To get a true as possible reading I'd need to add in customer complaints and return business. Do you have any suggestions on how to average all this information in together?

Thanks for your help.

It was pleasure to go through all the posts, which were sent in response to my earlier post dated: 5-01-2002 and I thank you all for this. It has added to my knowledge of these standards. Special thanks to ‘Lucinda’, Carl, Atul, David and Energy. Great help indeed and thanks once again to all of you who sent in their responses

I am sorry for my post carried the impression that the ‘finding’ was observed under clause 8.2.1-Customer satisfaction. In fact the ‘finding’ was observed under the clause 5.4.1- Quality objective.

One of our ‘quality objective’ derived from our quality policy is-” Obtaining and evaluating customer feedback and using this information for enhancement of customer satisfaction”

Now to measure this ‘quality objective’ we take the help of our customer satisfaction survey conducted (to address the clause 8.2.1 of the standard). Now obviously we have ‘defined targets’ to be achieved, for these quality objectives. For the above mentioned quality objective-‘Obtaining…….satisfaction’, we have defined “Customer Satisfaction Index” as its measure and have set a target of 90%

Now as said before, this CSI is obtained by averaging out the 5 parameters of ‘Customer Satisfaction Survey’ THIS IS WERE THE AUDITOR DOES NOT AGREE WITH US.

Let me clear again. He is not disputing about the choice of parameters in the survey nor does he dispute on the method of collecting customer feedback. He is of the opinion that this averaging out should be re-examined and replaced by some more accurate method. I will reproduce the exact text of his finding for getting a clear view of the finding:

Quote:

Standard: ISO 9001:2000
Clause: 5.4.1
Category: 2
FINDING:
TARGET FOR C.S.I FOR YEAR-2001 IS DEFINED AS 90% BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF PACKING/ONTIME DELIVERY/PROMPTNESS TO QUERRIES/VISIT FREQUENCY/QUALITY OF PRODUCT. HOWEVER THIS 90% CAN BE ACHIEVED IF QUALITY OF PRODUCT IS LOW AND OTHERS HIGH. THIS CRITERIA/METHOD MAY BE RE-EXAMINED

Un-Quote

After going through all the responsive posts I feel that we should add one more question at the start of the questionnaire asking the customers to rate the other parameters in terms of meeting their requirements and then give weightage accordingly. I am still undecided about the main finding of averaging out. How to arrive at CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX using the above 5 parameters of the survey and without taking average values.

I hope I have not confused the issue again……


:)

No, it doesn't confuse anything. Although...I think the discussion will take off again on a wild rocket ride!

Uteesh, I notice that the grading was a 2. Does your registrar use "observations" which are not mandatory to be done? Or was this written as a nonconformance?

Lucinda!

The finding was not an 'observation' but a catogory-2 non conformance

Hi Friend

I think u should have a special weight for every parameter acording to its importancy of each parameter if quality of deliver is the most important parameter near you ,you should suppose it in the formula with the highest weight and so on

best regard
any comment ?

I'm with you, Carl!

5.4.1 is a very wierd place for this finding and I haven't yet figured out the auditor's angle! You asked the right question : "Does your company measure and set objectives for the product quality in any other way? "

I have never seen 5.4.1 in this light, so I would be inclined to laugh at the auditor too! Wish I could have heard an oral explanation from him just where he was coming from...The finding is very poorly written and doesn't say exactly where the lack of conformance to the standard is, so I'm having a hard time seeing where my interpretation of this clause should be changed...

Yep, this is something new.

Carl,

"Too Cyan... Too Magenta..." You almost sound like you work for a printer!

I too am confused by the reference to 5.4.1 in this case. Looking at ISO 9004:2000 for further guidance, we find the following under 5.4.1:

QUOTE:
5.4.1 Quality objectives
The organization’s objectives should be established during the planning process. They should be consistent with the quality policy and capable of being measured.
When establishing these objectives, management should consider the current and future needs of the organization and the markets served. Consideration should also be given to output from management reviews, current product and process performance, and to the levels of satisfaction of all interested parties.
Objectives should be deployed throughout the organization with defined responsibility for their achievement and be clearly communicated to all relevant people. People should be able to translate these objectives into their individual contributions.
Objectives should be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary.
END OF QUOTE

I know I am stretching here, but we will face the same issues regarding surveys...

Perhaps what the auditor is referencing is that the measurement has not been, in the auditor's opinion, effective in consideration of the present and future needs of the organization and interested parties. The auditor may be looking to see how the output of the survey is reflective of the organization's goals and incorporates the voice of the Customer...

Perhaps, the auditor is looking for a "branding analysis" to determine who the organization is and what requirements they must answer. Or a competitive "bench-marking" study against the prime competitors to identify and validate survey content.

Maybe it is as simple as the auditor simply did not believe there was objective evidence linking the elements of the survey to product requirement objectives...

In Lead Auditor training, we were trained that if something looked strange, there were a few clauses that could be invoked for "general" discomfort. Perhaps, their auditor believes 5.4.1 is such a clause...

Carl,

Yes, in LA training we were told there were several clauses which could be used to support various "observations". Some trainees used these in the simulations to support varying levels of "discomfort" in assessing the systems being discussed, when they could not find a more appropriate clause...

I also am not sure this was an appropriate N/C. I am only attempting to determine what the assessor may have used as justification.

And I firmly believe this new ISO 9001:2000 Customer Focus clause is going to be open to considerable interpretation for some time...

(Also in NJ...)

Carl,

I am not saying I personally agree with "general" use of clauses to support findings when we do not find more specific support in the standard. I believe it is appropriate only to use the correct clause for any specific finding. And I am not sure 5.4.1 is appropriate here.

I will continue to be concerned as to how registrars will interpret the requirements for Customer Focus and measurement of such, including the use and interpretation of Customer Surveys. I believe there is considerable room for interpretation as to what is necessary and/or sufficient...

And, yes. It is a beautiful day up here, now that the fog has cleared...

A member of my Steering committee sent me this link. Could be an easy way to do customer satisfaction.


http://intercom.virginia.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/intercom/SurveySuite/ss_index.pl

James:bigwave:

Will have to look at it more closely.
Thank you! Eileen

Feedback from sales, if you serice your product at all there's their feedback. Look to any contact your company has with its customers on any level.

Carl,

If you visit your customers at least yearly, get feedback from your reps. You could even give them a "checklist" of items you'd like to know. A lot of times they can get a lot more info from a face to face than you can get from a mailed survey.

James

Just a couple of questions on the side:
1.Can anyone comment on what percentage of survey forms sent out to customers are actually filled and returned?
2. Generally are the surveys sent out to multiple respondants or departments in a customer's organization? If so, is there a different questionnaire for every respondant?
-Atul

Atul,

In addtion to the other services we provide our members at MRA, we also do customer satisfaction surveys. The response rate depends on how the survey is approached. A mailing without any pre-mailing or post-mailing follow up typically results in a 3 - 10% response rate. If you call the intended recipient first and then follow up if it is not returned you can get into the 90% range and higher.

The typical coding sywtem is to use different paper colors so you can determine groups.

Hope that helps. If you need more info let me know.

Regards,

Rick