Registrars review Customer Complaints - QS-9000, Appendix B.6 Interpretation

[D.Scott]

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

[Marc]

Oh boy! How nice!

[Atul Khandekar]

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?

[D.Scott]

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

[Sam]

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.

[JodiB]

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"

[Atul Khandekar]

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.

[Sam]

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