I've just run into something interesting. I was handed 2 debit memo's this morning for 2 seperate customer complaints for May (this is now July!) During our Management review meeting in June, in which we covered the month of May, there was 1 customer complaint reported. This customer complaint did not relate to either one of the debit memo's I received. When I brought this up to the owner, his response was "is this the “political” way of working the system in order to keep the PPM’s looking good?"

Does anyone else feel like their :frust: . Does anyone have any suggestions?

Jonell

I've just run into something interesting. I was handed 2 debit memo's this morning for 2 seperate customer complaints for May (this is now July!) During our Management review meeting in June, in which we covered the month of May, there was 1 customer complaint reported. This customer complaint did not relate to either one of the debit memo's I received. When I brought this up to the owner, his response was "is this the “political” way of working the system in order to keep the PPM’s looking good?"

Does anyone else feel like their :frust: . Does anyone have any suggestions?

JonellI would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts (about even trade at Krispy Kreme, lately) that nobody in your organization is "hiding" complaints.

For your sake and sanity, I hope the following is only a cautionary tale and not the reality in your case.

In my experience and that of many others whose comments I read here and in other forums, many customers do not bother with a complaint mechanism and routinely issue debit memos without determining if the supplier really is responsible.

A lot of suppliers have tried to enforce a rule which says in effect:
"No credits or returns without a return authorization signed by our Materials Manager or his designee."

Arrogant customers merely ignore such statements in the acceptance of a contract and issue unilateral debit memos. Most often, these same organizations do not have a valid reason for doing so.

When you have an uncooperative customer, part of the Contract Review should be to balance the internal cost of dealing with such arrogance against the gross profit on a sale to determine if there is a net profit or loss on the transaction.

I have at least a dozen of my own stories where we FIRED bad customers. Everybody should have some of those stories - it validates the reason for Contract Review.

We have had similar situations in a couple of organizations. Our action to correct was to train the focus of "looking good" to being customer focused instead of the historical "no issue- good product". One item we stressed was responce times to issues. For example, those receiving a customer call log and prioritze the item imediately. Depending upon the priority, we have a specific responce time to get back to the customer. Our "bean-counting" is now trained on issues that fail to be acted upon by the assigned time.



I've just run into something interesting. I was handed 2 debit memo's this morning for 2 seperate customer complaints for May (this is now July!) During our Management review meeting in June, in which we covered the month of May, there was 1 customer complaint reported. This customer complaint did not relate to either one of the debit memo's I received. When I brought this up to the owner, his response was "is this the “political” way of working the system in order to keep the PPM’s looking good?"

Does anyone else feel like their :frust: . Does anyone have any suggestions?

Jonell

I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts (about even trade at Krispy Kreme, lately) that nobody in your organization is "hiding" complaints.

For your sake and sanity, I hope the following is only a cautionary tale and not the reality in your case.

In my experience and that of many others whose comments I read here and in other forums, many customers do not bother with a complaint mechanism and routinely issue debit memos without determining if the supplier really is responsible.

A lot of suppliers have tried to enforce a rule which says in effect:
"No credits or returns without a return authorization signed by our Materials Manager or his designee."

Wes,

Sadly enough, this is not merely a tale, but a true story. The person responsible for reporting the customer complaints did not report them to anyone in our shop, nor log them onto the customer complaint log. In fact, this individual went so far as to authorize the customer to scrap out 1500 pcs of one part, and to hire a sorting company to sort about 4500 pieces on our behalf of another without ever even seeing a part.

Yes, we have written procedures in place to deal with customer complaints & rejections (this same individual helped to write them and define his responsibilites in them).

So, how does one deal with a person who refuses to play by the rules, including the rules that he/she helped to create?

Jonell

I would begin by issuing him/her a CAR which includes a detailed breakdown of the associated cost and have him define how he is going to correct his nonconformance. If that does not work, discilinary action may be necessary. :whip:

Wes,

Sadly enough, this is not merely a tale, but a true story. The person responsible for reporting the customer complaints did not report them to anyone in our shop, nor log them onto the customer complaint log. In fact, this individual went so far as to authorize the customer to scrap out 1500 pcs of one part, and to hire a sorting company to sort about 4500 pieces on our behalf of another without ever even seeing a part.

Yes, we have written procedures in place to deal with customer complaints & rejections (this same individual helped to write them and define his responsibilites in them).

So, how does one deal with a person who refuses to play by the rules, including the rules that he/she helped to create?

Jonell

Jonell,
Eventually the individual must be dealt with. What I have found is that some folks have a "mind-set" (pre-programmed) and no matter the training or the degree of management persuasion they will resort back to that "mind-set". I recall a recognized x-ray machine provider's journey to ISO certification. Some of their managers resorted to their "mind-set" of "ship at any cost" which cost the company certification in the first round. The company retrained and then found through audit that the "mind-set" could not be erased. Those managers were terminated!
In pursuit of a QMS there must be a culture change!Top management cannot, on one hand, back a QMS culture change while on the other hand still reward the "ship at any cost" mentality! Those that cannot change, and/or cannot be retrained, must be removed for the good of the company. Yes, we must ship! But first lets be sure it is right!
I recall another "mind-set" when I worked for a Major Aerospace company. The non-conformance was written and the disposition more often then not was "send to MRB" (material reveiw board). needless to say MRB became a major bottle neck.
We can do little except to exhort management to amke the change!
Jim Howe

Wes,

Sadly enough, this is not merely a tale, but a true story. The person responsible for reporting the customer complaints did not report them to anyone in our shop, nor log them onto the customer complaint log. In fact, this individual went so far as to authorize the customer to scrap out 1500 pcs of one part, and to hire a sorting company to sort about 4500 pieces on our behalf of another without ever even seeing a part.

Yes, we have written procedures in place to deal with customer complaints & rejections (this same individual helped to write them and define his responsibilites in them).

So, how does one deal with a person who refuses to play by the rules, including the rules that he/she helped to create?

JonellI envision a problem where the person is so high on the food chain in your organization that you endanger your own position by calling attention to it.

This latest info gives more meaning to your comment:
When I brought this up to the owner, his response was "is this the “political” way of working the system in order to keep the PPM’s looking good?"

This is definitely a "top down" situation.
If you can have a confidential conversation with the owner again, you can tell him that Quality experts from various industries have looked at the situation as you describe it and almost all have responded that an organization only injures itself when it allows individuals to operate outside the processes and systems of the organization.

I can cite issues of financial and psychological damage which result from situations where individuals operate in direct opposition to the established system (especially when they can't show a benefit to the organization from the non-authorized activity.)

The owner has a decision to make. The plain fact is this is NOT a political or any other way of working the system. It's just plain wrong! From allowing this kind of non-authorized activity, it is an easy downhill slide to fudging inspection reports and other more nefarious activity (Enron?) Why should one customer get more favorable treatment than another? Is there a connection between customer and employee?

The individual involved must have a lot of clout for an owner to allow this to continue unless the owner actively condones this activity.

This is definitely an instance to pay attention to your paranoid fantasies.
In the words of the Lost in Space robot:
"Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"

...many customers do not bother with a complaint mechanism and routinely issue debit memos...

what's a debit memo?

A debit memo is the customer's official notification that they are withholding an amount from what they owe you.

Example - You bill the customer $500 for a job. The customer has to sort the product and incurs $100 in sorting fees. They send you a check for $400 and a debit memo for $100. They now consider the bill is paid in full.

Dave

A debit memo is the customer's official notification that they are withholding an amount from what they owe you.

Example - You bill the customer $500 for a job. The customer has to sort the product and incurs $100 in sorting fees. They send you a check for $400 and a debit memo for $100. They now consider the bill is paid in full.

DaveNice, succinct explanation, Dave. It is important to add that these can be of two varieties:

Customer and supplier have agreed on the amount and the item is merely "bookkeeping"
Customer unilaterally imposes fees and fines and supplier is forced to sue to recover funds if supplier does not agree with the debit memo in amount or in reason.

So, how does one deal with a person who refuses to play by the rules, including the rules that he/she helped to create?

Jonell

In many cases you can't. Normally, you are not the one with the power to change things. Usually, the best you can do is to alert management. As mshell stated, start off with a CAR (against the procedure). Now that the organization has officially recognized the problem, they must remove their head from the sand.

You need to point out that the QMS is meaningless if folks are allowed to circumvent it.

The CAR will begin the documentation process and correction process.

You can not force the manager to follow the procedures but you can invite him/her to help resolve the nonconforming situation and hope that he sees this as an opportunity to improve/correct the current process.