Internal Audit - Non conformity not easily fixable (Sales and Contracts)

[Golfman25]

I would look at this as an opportunity for improvement. What you have here is "sales" making a "promise" to get the business. They figure at the end of the day 2 or 4 hours won't make a real difference and they will be able to smooth any unhappy customer over. Your own internal measurements are just those -- internal.

See your sales people want 2 hours or less, cause the customer is pushing them (they'll say anything to make the sale). Your support people want 4 hrs. or more, cause they already have enough work (and they don't want to look "bad").

It is no different is our business and lead time. Customers are always pushing for shorter lead times. At some point you just can't do it. So you either tell them the truth -- here is what we'll do and do it. Or you tell them what they want to hear and deal with any consequences later. It is a balancing act.

You will need to look at your process and determine what is reasonable under the circumstances and go from there. Good luck.

 

[Sardokar]

Sorry but none of you have answered the question,as far as i understood

is it a non conformity to evaluate support performance against targets that are not accurate ?

If i promise on the contract 2 hours response time , and track it compared to 4 hours response time ,is that a non conformity ? ( against procedure that requires accurate assesment )

Furthermore, if we reply to the customer within 3 hours , am i outside the objective ? ( yes if we consider contract(2 hours), no if we consider procedure (4 hours)...which is it ?? )

Thanks

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If i promise on the contract 2 hours response time , and track it compared to 4 hours response time ,is that a non conformity ? ( against procedure that requires accurate assesment )

Furthermore, if we reply to the customer within 3 hours , am i outside the objective ? ( yes if we consider contract(2 hours), no if we consider procedure (4 hours)...which is it ?? )

Yes, it is a nonconformity. If you have a contractual requirement of resolving an issue within a 2-hour window and you track your own performance against a longer response time, you are using the wrong criteria to monitor your process.

It is like Bugatti selling a Veyron telling the customer the car is capable of doing 253 miles per hour, but only testing the car to 220 miles per hour top speed.

Once you commit to a certain level of performance to a customer (e.g., 2 hour maximum before issue resolved), especially when contractually specified, that is the criteria you need to assess your level of performance to.

 

[Golfman25]

I am going to disagree. Just because you miss a target, does not mean there is a non-conformance. That is what targets are for -- something to shoot for. If you make your targets easily obtainable, then what good are they?

Your performance target is 4 hours -- that is what you should measure against. Presumably, that target was set after careful review and debate as to what a good target would be. Just because someone promised a single customer a faster performance should not affect your measurement. We all make "promises" to customers we may not be able to keep and deal with it later.

Whether the act of promising a quicker perfromance is a non-conformance will depend upon your procedures. Which is why many responses focused on updating the procedure.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Just because you miss a target, does not mean there is a non-conformance.

Do you understand what an SLA (Service Level Agreement) is? These are contractual requirements! These are not "self imposed", wishful targets.

If a server goes down for two hours, there will be a level of disruption. If a server goes down for 4 hours, the financial implications can be dire, depending on your dependency on a network. Customers contract IT providers with SLA criteria well established. If the provider fails to deliver on the committed level of service, there are penalties involved.

If an aircraft manufacturer fails to deliver an airplane on time to the airline, there are financial penalties involved.

 

[Pancho]

Sorry but none of you have answered the question,as far as i understood

is it a non conformity to evaluate support performance against targets that are not accurate ?

If i promise on the contract 2 hours response time , and track it compared to 4 hours response time ,is that a non conformity ? ( against procedure that requires accurate assesment )

Furthermore, if we reply to the customer within 3 hours , am i outside the objective ? ( yes if we consider contract(2 hours), no if we consider procedure (4 hours)...which is it ?? )

Thanks

I think you actually have two non-conformities here:

1)
Your delivery time does not conform to your client's requirement.

2)
You are taking on commitments that are more stringent than what you can or will do, as evidenced by your laxer procedure. This is a non-conformity in your contract drafting, review or negotiation processes. A contract always takes precedence over a procedure.


If you must take a contract with that commits you to something more strict than your standard procedural requirements, you'd better modify your procedure in a hurry. At the very least your procedure should have a qualification that says "delivery in 4h, or as required by contract."

 

[Golfman25]

Do you understand what an SLA (Service Level Agreement) is? These are contractual requirements! These are not "self imposed", wishful targets.

If a server goes down for two hours, there will be a level of disruption. If a server goes down for 4 hours, the financial implications can be dire, depending on your dependency on a network. Customers contract IT providers with SLA criteria well established. If the provider fails to deliver on the committed level of service, there are penalties involved.

If an aircraft manufacturer fails to deliver an airplane on time to the airline, there are financial penalties involved.

I understand exactly. And in everyone of my posts I said you make a "promise" and deal with the consequenses. If there are financial penalties involved, then that is the consequence. However, those are business decisions -- making a promise and suffering consequences -- and should not effect how you measure a departments performance. In this case, the department agreed on a 4 hour time frame. Some customers have asked for 2 hours and the company agreed. The department should not be penalized for something it has no control over -- what sales agrees to beyond the company's stated ability. Cetainly they should try to meet the 2 hour window and continiously improve to get there if that is what the market is asking for.

Whether making the excessive promises is a good business practice will depend. Happens all the time in my business. Competitors tell our customers they can to it in 6 weeks at half the cost. We tell them it will be closer to 18 weeks and twice the cost. We loose a lot of business because of our honesty. However, when we follow up in 6 weeks, they are nowhere near completion and then around 18 weeks they are still struggling to completion. Thus is life.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

what sales agrees to beyond the company's stated ability.

And that IS A NONCONFORMITY, against ISO 9001, 7.2.2:

This review shall be conducted prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer (e.g. submission of tenders, acceptance of
contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders) and shall ensure that
a) product requirements are defined,
b) contract or order requirements differing from those previously expressed are resolved, and
c) the organization has the ability to meet the defined requirements.

 

[Sardokar]

. However, those are business decisions -- making a promise and suffering consequences -- and should not effect how you measure a departments performance. In this case, the department agreed on a 4 hour time frame. Some customers have asked for 2 hours and the company agreed. The department should not be penalized for something it has no control over -- what sales agrees to beyond the company's stated ability. Cetainly they should try to meet the 2 hour window and continiously improve to get there if that is what the market is asking for.

The real problem is that our Support tracking sheet is Comparing actual response time to an INCORRECT target

I would NOT have a problem if we promised 2 hours response time , tracked the response time AGAINST a 2 hour target and found that we did not meet objective

In that case a CAR would be issued and we would try to understand why we did not meet these 2 hours response time ( laziness, impossibility with actual resources ...etc) and taken appropriate corrective actions


what i really have a problem is is that we are Tracking the response time against SLA that are superior to those promised to customer,we are tracking response time against 4 hours , not 2

All the assesment of the suport process is wrong

 

[Pancho]

And that IS A NONCONFORMITY, against ISO 9001, 7.2.2:

Besides the rightly pointed out §7.2.2.c, this NC is also against the flush language in §7.2.2: "Where product requirements are changed, the organization shall ensure that the relevant documents are amended and that the relevant personnel are made aware of the changed requirements."