Here is an e-mail I got from my registrar.

"As a result of a recent accreditation body audit here at ------------, a modified interpretation of a QS-9000 and QS-9000/TE Supplement requirement has been brought forth. As a result of this developing interpretation, ------ has changed audit checklists for both surveillance audits and initial assessments. Audit checklists were updated in the element 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Action.

The raised issue pertained to the QS-9000, Appendix B.6 requirement that registrars review Customer Complaints and the Supplier Response during each surveillance audit. The accreditation body has introduced a more diverse interpretation of the meaning of "supplier response" in that, along with meaning that certified company's must respond or act on each and every customer complaint, they must also communicate their action(s), or no action, back to the customer for each and every complaint. In other words, we are all used to issuing corrective actions for legitimate customer complaints/returns but not necessarily responding back to the customer with our actions unless specifically asked to do so. A definite response or reply to the complaining customer is now a requirement of your corrective action system. Our auditors have been directed to look for objective evidence to that effect."

The registrar's name is omitted simply because I don't have permission to quote them.

Dave

Oh boy! How nice!

The accreditation body has introduced a more diverse interpretation of the meaning of "supplier response" in that, along with meaning that certified company's must respond or act on each and every customer complaint, they must also communicate their action(s), or no action, back to the customer for each and every complaint.

You mean certified companies could 'respond' without communicating with the customer?

You mean certified companies could 'respond' without communicating with the customer?

No, but is that communication always documented? A lot of our contact in the past has been by phone or e-mail. If the auditor has to find objective evidence of the communication, I need to start saving e-mails (topic of a prior thread) and loging phone calls.

If you have a system where all customer concerns are listed in your log and initial investigation establishes this concern requires no further action, do you communicate that to the customer? Sometimes, yes but I am sure we could all come up with "informational" or "unjustified" complaints where we didn't document our response to the customer.

I guess my thinking is that if the registrar took the time to notify us that the interpretation was made and they are revising their auditing checklist, they must see areas where a problem could exist.

Like you, I see this as a "should be normal practice" interpretation but I can see where I need to be sure my system doesn't have documentation holes.

Dave

Although registrars can and do make their own interpretations of the standard it's always good to get a second opinion. Again this would be one of those "killer" requirements for the small company.
This looks like a question for the IASG to interpret.

Sam said:
Although registrars can and do make their own interpretations of the standard it's always good to get a second opinion.

This isn't a registrar interpretation, it is an accreditation body's interpretation. All registrars accredited by this accreditation body must comply.

Companies could previously "respond" but not communicate with customers on the actions taken because the actions taken (the response to the complaint) were internal measures: the customer complains that the messages he leaves for so-and-so are never returned. The company starts a program of monitoring the number of voicemails that are stacked up in everyone's mailboxes. This isn't something that is told to the customer,but as a result of the company's new program, he just manages to get his messages returned.

Now to comply, the company will probably just send out a form letter that says something to the effect of "thank you for your comment about our service, product, etc. We have taken appropriate actions to address this and hope that you will be pleased with the results. Yada yada yada...Sincerely, the company"

If you have a system where all customer concerns are listed in your log and initial investigation establishes this concern requires no further action, do you communicate that to the customer?

You would certainly have reasons for 'No Action', (say, if this was covered already under some other complaint). May be this could be communicated. You could classify the complaints as per their 'severity' and 'occurence'? You could communicate about 'each and every' high severity complaint (I am sure this is being done already). Other complaints could be clubbed into one response (I am sure this is also done)

"informational" : Are these 'complaints'?
"unjustified" : WHAT??

rgds,
-Atul.

Lucinda,
Regardless of my mis-use of the terminology, interpretations of the standard, when needed, is still a matter for the IASG.

One World, One Quality System, One Billion Interpretations.

Does this apply to formal or informal concerns?

I don't know about this one. I brought this up at our Steering Committee Meeting this morning and started a huge arguement (I know as usually Lucinda :D).
Is this referring to customer COMPLAINTS or customer CONCERNS? My fear is that we would lose documentation of the smaller concerns! If I don't document it I don't have to document a response. I'm not saying this is the way to do it. For those of you who deal with Ford in new models think about the AIMS issues. They post a dry marker board by the vehicle, as you walk around it you can post your "concern" on the board. Once a week we meet to go over the concerns. A sweeper can post a concern, i.e. window seems difficult to operate, and it can appear in your deck. This is an early model build (CP), does it require a documented response???:eek: The customer doesn't always require it, it may be cleared in the next meeting as a non-issue.
I don't know.

time to define a customer complaint.........clearly documented for your self and to present to the registrar during an audit...a review for trends should not be a customer distribution

Doesn't that defeat the purpose Barb? No self-respecting client will give an "old" open concern to the auditor. What I present to the auditor will be documented perfectly!:confused:

not sure I follow you Randy???????

IMHO the term customer complaint needs to be defined by each company's needs so you can have the freedom to dismiss the "idiot" unfounded grumblings... not affecting the quality of product of course...or perhaps don't document them as someone suggested, but i would rather "legally" dismiss them and be the one in control of what does or does not get documented cause that leads to bad habits.......

Obviously all presented ones need to be "Clean"...LOL ...that in itself is an art, isn't it? BUT You would be surprisd what gets presented!!!!!
:bonk:

So back to my original comment.....defeating what purpose? Forgive me, :o for I am sooooooooo distracted these days.



BY the way.........What accrediting body are we talking about? I can guess......the one I don't use very often I'd bet!!!!!

Sorry Barb - the registrar has both on our certificate and he didn't say which one was doing the surveillance.

Atul
"informational" : Are these 'complaints'?
Here they are because they come in the same way any other complaint does. Our company has 10 locations and until the initial analysis is done on a concern, the person receiving the call has no way of knowing where it will end up. A good example is a third shift call from a customer. The person taking the call may not even be able to determine from which location the part was shipped, or if the customer needs any kind of response/action.

"unjustified" : WHAT??
Here again - we get a call on 3rd shift saying the customer's bin was spilled in transit. This is recorded because of the current system. In the morning it is determined that the customer picked up the bin from our dock. The truck was his, their driver did the loading. A call to the customer receives an apology for the error. Our paperwork may not have caught up with the concern yet (call received here in Wellington - paperwork not through system yet - Illinois calls corporate office - big laughs and sighs of relief - "forget about the call".

Barb's comment about defining a customer complaint is exactly the point I am making. Whatever you define by your system had better have the documentation to show as objective evidence.

Randy makes the other point - this promotes the idea -
If I don't document it I don't have to document a response.
To my thinking that could lose a lot of valuable information.

Dave

clearly documented for your self
This is what I was asking about Barb, documenting it for myself I'll have everything laid out perfect. Good problem description (even if it's not what the customer meant), good actions (although they served no purpose), and timely closure (even if it was never really opened). I think I understand what the auditor would be looking for - stop the problem before it grows. So by letting the supplier pick and choose the compliants to be documented seems to defeat the purpose of the interpretation?

"If I don't document it I don't have to document a response."
To my thinking that could lose a lot of valuable information.
Exactly Dave, this was my main point Barb. By trying to force the supplier to do something, they'll be hurting the customer in the end.
Now the big question is: What will the registrars accept in the definition of customer complaint.

The definition that energy and I use will fit with this requirement very nicely! Because within our customer satisfaction procedure we define a "complaint" as something that requires a response to the customer! Ergo, all complaints (by virtue of their def) will be responded to. And anything not requiring a response to the customer is not defined as a complaint! Nice circle, yeah?

I'm not trying to insult you Lucinda, but . . . . . Your definition sounds like something I'd come up with!:vfunny:
I've checked my contacts, cleaned the monitor screen and nothing changes. Maybe I'm still dreaming. I do like the thinking.
:agree:

Lucinda said:
The definition that energy and I use will fit with this requirement very nicely! Because within our customer satisfaction procedure we define a "complaint" as something that requires a response to the customer! Ergo, all complaints (by virtue of their def) will be responded to. And anything not responding a response to the customer is not defined as a complaint! Nice circle, yeah?

Hi Cinda!

Nice bit of circular logic... :vfunny: I'm still trying to get a good handle on our customer contact system and set appropriate definitions & limits, so this topic is near & dear (well... not so dear) to my heart... :ko:

I like your definition, however, who defines what requires a response to the customer? For example: Would the complaint, "Your prices are too high." merit a response?

Cheers!

Michael T said:



Hi Cinda!

I like your definition, however, who defines what requires a response to the customer? For example: Would the complaint, "Your prices are too high." merit a response?

Cheers!

Unfair question.:p Customers all want more for less. How about, "You guys are always late with my stuff?". We would look back at our Customer Complaints and see if that common to other Customers. If it's not valid, no response. (No complaint) If it's valid, I would respond with my CA/PA to Sales/Shipping. Who determines? Why, I do, of course.:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Lucky me, I work in the Meidcal Device Industry, so anytime a client expresses dissatisfaction whether it be oral or written we have to document it and the investigation in to it. We also, need to document our rationale if we decide it does not require a response to the client. :bonk:

energy said:

Unfair question.:p Customers all want more for less. How about, "You guys are always late with my stuff?". We would look back at our Customer Complaints and see if that common to other Customers. If it's not valid, no response. (No complaint) If it's valid, I would respond with my CA/PA to Sales/Shipping. Who determines? Why, I do, of course.:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Now Energy... not all customers want something for nothing... :rolleyes: You believe that - I've got ocean front property for sale in Arizona. Great price!

Ok... seriously.... What makes THAT customer's complaint valid as opposed to the others that came before? Or, what makes that complaint not valid simply because there isn't a history yet? Trend analysis is great, but some things can't wait for trends.

Right now, I'm tracking "contacts" (those may or may not be a complaint - e.g. "your prices are too high"). If the contact requires action, then a CA/PA is filed with the appropriate department. If the customer requires a response - that is automatically classified as a complaint and automatically gets a CA report. Who determines? Why.... little ol' me.... The contacts are then trended on a frequent (no definitions here) basis to determine if something needs to have a CA/PA written. Trends are also reported at the quarterly Management Review Meeting for review and possible action.

This is still a new process (or is that procedure? Oooops... wrong thread :p ) and I'm still trying to work the bugs out. Can you see any holes in the system?

Cheers!!!

Michael T said:

Ok... seriously.... What makes THAT customer's complaint valid as opposed to the others that came before? Or, what makes that complaint not valid simply because there isn't a history yet? Trend analysis is great, but some things can't wait for trends.

Right now, I'm tracking "contacts" (those may or may not be a complaint - e.g. "your prices are too high"). If the contact requires action, then a CA/PA is filed with the appropriate department. If the customer requires a response - that is automatically classified as a complaint and automatically gets a CA report. Who determines? Why.... little ol' me.... The contacts are then trended on a frequent (no definitions here) basis to determine if something needs to have a CA/PA written. Trends are also reported at the quarterly Management Review Meeting for review and possible action.

This is still a new process (or is that procedure? Oooops... wrong thread :p ) and I'm still trying to work the bugs out. Can you see any holes in the system?

Cheers!!!

Michael T.

That's basically what we do. We have to trend it because the input, right now, is overwhelming. We know we have a problem with our Distribution Division. The amounts of complaints and negative feedback is proportional to the type of Customer base. This division deals with mostly contractors purchasing parts to put in residential homes for water treatment. Many times we send replacements when we feel that the Contractor is lying. "I didn't get this and I didn't get that." We have to tighten up in that area, as well as Customer communication as to what the customer really wants. When they put the proper checks in place, we will have to take a stand and say "No more". If we lose them, so be it. We also make mistakes because they bring in temporary help and do not train them properly. Until we tackle those things where we know we are deficient, trend-trend-trend and continue to make money. I will not take every customer complaint/feedback as a reason to stop my normal routine just to issue CAR's. You know how I hate bullys.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Just not from Arizona!
I'm still having a difficult time with this. We have daily face-to-face meetings on the floor with our customers. They don't like this weld pattern, don't like the dart, don't care for the trim. Are these all legitimate concerns that need to be documented. I could employ a person full time just to run around the shop!!! This is the way we get the customer input to determine what they are looking for - remember prototype.
Some of them are full fledge complaints because we miss "interpreted" the data. It will take some doing to get the understanding as to what is what on the floor.

I've gotta agree with you there, Randy.

The whole problem with data (whether it comes from the customer or elsewhere) is how to separate the wheat from the chaff. For many years businesses failed to listen to their customers. Sure, they received customer complaints - dutifully answered them and filed them away. But now we have this whole new level to which we have to rise. Not only do we have to document customer satisfaction, we have to actually LISTEN to what the customer is saying. Now we're flooded with data. To what do we listen? To what do we respond? What is meaninful and what is bellyaching? There are times when the customers may not even know that they DON'T know they are wrong. Don't try and tell them that though... the customer is always right... remember?

Ultimately, I think it is up to US to say what is meaninful and what isn't. I am taking the tack that a registrar or accrediting body can only audit whether or not we are collecting the data and conducting analysis. What we do with that analysis is up to us. I can't see how they can say that what we do is insufficient or incorrect. I may be wrong - but then, that is another battle.

Cheers!!!

Randy Stewart said:

Just not from Arizona!
I'm still having a difficult time with this. We have daily face-to-face meetings on the floor with our customers. They don't like this weld pattern, don't like the dart, don't care for the trim. Are these all legitimate concerns that need to be documented. I could employ a person full time just to run around the shop!!! This is the way we get the customer input to determine what they are looking for - remember prototype.
Some of them are full fledge complaints because we miss "interpreted" the data. It will take some doing to get the understanding as to what is what on the floor.

Randy,

What Lucinda and I are talking about is "after sales". They are not product specific. General perception of the Customer how we look. This comes in from Accounts Payable, Sales Folk, Project and Application Engineers. Actually, any one who is in regular contact with a customer who may drop a disparaging remark about our service and products, in general.
What YOU do, interfacing routinely(daily?), is satisfy the customer's needs. When they have finally purchased and signed off on it, that's when complaints and feedback kick in. We may not have it right, but Khanhom developed the procedure and he's smarter than me! :bonk: But, even you are! The "after sales" thing is his definition. :ko: :smokin:

FWIW- here are some definitions we use

Customer Issue (Issue)
A concern that may or may not lead to formal investigation and corrective action. Issues will be monitored for trending or escalation for investigation and/or corrective action.
Customer Complaint (Complaint)
An issue brought to XYZ's attention that does not require any financial considerations or concessions be made to the customer. Complaints will be investigated and may or may not lead to formal corrective actions.
Customer Claim (Claim)
An issue that may or may not require a formal corrective actions. Claims differ from complaints in that the customer is asking for resolution that includes some type of financial outlay from XYZ. All claims will be investigated
Customer Feedback (Feedback)
Issues brought to our attention that may present an opportunity for improvement in other areas or with other customers. These items are typically positive feedback items.
Investigation
Performing root cause analysis

Steel,

I like that. It leaves an option to respond or not. As Michael T. has asked. Who determines? You? You betcha!

:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Nice definitions, Steel!! They allow the flexibility to act or simply file the info away for future use. Cool tool! :bigwave:

Steel, I really like the addition of "claims", very nice.

We only had the two definitions: feedback and complaints. I think I may add your Claims one....

Hey Guys!

Another new week, I hate Mondays!!!

I hope you can get good use of the definitions. I basically came up with them out of desperation/self preservation. For some reason, I couldn't seem to get anyone thinking beyond "claims", nothing else made any difference to them. If it didn't cost us money, they couldn't understand why we would worry about it. So, we all (sales and financial people) sat down and I explained that it isn't always about money up front. Sometimes the customers perceptions of how we do business (I use the term sometimes very loosely) can affect future business transactions. If we don't get everything right, those customers will say "why buy from them, they can't even get their paperwork right?"

Thanks everyone, it helps me to get some positive feedback!