Returned but Customer damaged parts. Is it a NC?

Stefanos Papadakis

Starting to get Involved
#21
Is recommended to propose to your customer that valves were shipped ok, if they accept , you could repair the damages with some charge, if you can support the warranty.
On the other hand, is not common nor recommended to raise NC against your customer, remember "customer satisfaction".
By the way, didn't they view the fabrication records to verify valves were ok?.in this industry is managed to have a Bunch of records of the fabrication of the equipment, Is called dossier, into it Is included all the pased tests.other Point how important Is your customer?
Really do you have great benefits or is ocasional and minimum benefits?
Consider this before to reach the agreement.
Regards
We have great benefits from them that's why we want to reach agreement. They had the records of the tests but the valve leaked during operation.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#22
So you have test results showing that, "as shipped", all valves were fine.
Your customer did "something", and now it leaks.
Because it leaks now, they returned the batch...and damaged the batch to ensure it was not re-shipped.

Sounds like relationship management to me...this is not a product quality issue, though it is a QMS issue.

I my little world, I would enter a Corrective Action for the returned merchandise (all returns generate CA), but the "Action" may well be to reach agreement with the customer regarding what they do on receipt, how they test, what is done to things that pass your pre-shipping tests, but fail after they do stuff, and how the non-failing parts of the same shipment or lot are handled at the customer.

You making stuff has cost.
You testing stuff has cost.
You shipping stuff has cost.
Them testing stuff has cost.
Them rejecting and quarantining/damaging stuff has cost.
Shipping back to you has cost.
You handling returned/damaged merchandise has cost.
Y'all need to cooperate together to minimize what costs are incurred, and decide cooperatively who pays which of the costs.

Overall, it sounds like you and your customer are not aligned. Maybe you both thought you were, but this event shows a flaw. Work together to address this flaw and use the communication through this to form a tighter and mutually more-beneficial relationship. While you're at it (more to the point, while the relationship manager or sales is at it)...find a way to increase your margin...always a goal during customer interactions.

HTH
 

Stefanos Papadakis

Starting to get Involved
#23
So you have test results showing that, "as shipped", all valves were fine.
Your customer did "something", and now it leaks.
Because it leaks now, they returned the batch...and damaged the batch to ensure it was not re-shipped.

Sounds like relationship management to me...this is not a product quality issue, though it is a QMS issue.

I my little world, I would enter a Corrective Action for the returned merchandise (all returns generate CA), but the "Action" may well be to reach agreement with the customer regarding what they do on receipt, how they test, what is done to things that pass your pre-shipping tests, but fail after they do stuff, and how the non-failing parts of the same shipment or lot are handled at the customer.

You making stuff has cost.
You testing stuff has cost.
You shipping stuff has cost.
Them testing stuff has cost.
Them rejecting and quarantining/damaging stuff has cost.
Shipping back to you has cost.
You handling returned/damaged merchandise has cost.
Y'all need to cooperate together to minimize what costs are incurred, and decide cooperatively who pays which of the costs.

Overall, it sounds like you and your customer are not aligned. Maybe you both thought you were, but this event shows a flaw. Work together to address this flaw and use the communication through this to form a tighter and mutually more-beneficial relationship. While you're at it (more to the point, while the relationship manager or sales is at it)...find a way to increase your margin...always a goal during customer interactions.

HTH
Well I agree but management is a bit rough on that part (communication ). Our CEO is willing to pay for the shipping and repair in order to keep them as customers!
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#25
Well I agree but management is a bit rough on that part (communication ). Our CEO is willing to pay for the shipping and repair in order to keep them as customers!
Fair enough. That is the prerogative of Management.
I would close out the CA with "Management (specific title or name) chose to accept return and shipping costs regardless of cause. Investigation shows that parts were not defective prior to shipment by internal testing. Parts deemed to have been damaged by customer, but received/credited to maintain relationship." Done, closed, move on...

This stuff happens...not worth getting angst about it.
 

Stefanos Papadakis

Starting to get Involved
#26
Fair enough. That is the prerogative of Management.
I would close out the CA with "Management (specific title or name) chose to accept return and shipping costs regardless of cause. Investigation shows that parts were not defective prior to shipment by internal testing. Parts deemed to have been damaged by customer, but received/credited to maintain relationship." Done, closed, move on...

This stuff happens...not worth getting angst about it.
Yes I agree these things happen and it's a good lesson for us after all!
 

Top Bottom