Help with customer complaints

Hello! I am a new Quality Manager in the label manufacturing industry. I am overwhelmed by the amount of customer complaints that come in - we are averaging about 1 per day ranging from shipping to incorrect location, print skips, incorrect billing, incorrect purchase order number, dirty looking label... some common ones are that the customers require a root cause and corrective action on complaints that we did not do anything wrong. Such as it was their testing method that the label failed which we were unaware of, or a varnish on the label that they can run on now because the varnish caused the labels to be too slippery that should have been vetted through our R&D department. When does it become a technical project and not a corrective action request?

Our cost of poor quality is through the roof because we just simply do not push back to our customers to understand their process enough prior to implementing corrective actions or asking the customer to use it as is if it does not affect form, fit, or function and we will correct with next run. Our customers love us because we simply take back product when there is a complaint and give "good faith" credits.... Can you tell it's driving me nuts?

What are some questions you ask your customers to better understand their complaints?
What is the proper way to push back to our customers and still keeping them happy and reduce our costs of quality?
Who in your company is engaged with customer complaints (direct contact with the customer on complaints)? Sales, Customer Service, Production Management, Quality?

Since I am new to QA management, I would love to hear some feedback regarding how to reduce our cost of poor quality and put resources in the right areas to address and deep dive into effective root cause and corrective actions as well.

I know this is a lengthy post, and thanks for reading. Thanks!!

I would go back and do a pareto chart of the problems. That way you can categorize them. From your description it sounds like you have a contract review/order entry issue. One thing is you need to make sure you understand the customer requirements And any technical issues. Better to delay the order entry than to screw up the order.

As for pushing back, that’s fine. But you better know what you‘re supposed to be doing.

Forgive the snark: what if Boeing pushed back on Alaska Air and said quit whining - no one died and the plane would have better fuel efficiency without all that weight.
None of the things you listed are the Customer’s fault and your pushing back will drive them away. Maybe you need a better contract review process but Golfman is correct. Pareto the PROBLEMS (Actual complaints not any guess at root cause) and start at the top. Solve it one at a time. Use actual data and evidence, not opinion or strongly held belief…

Added in Edit: I have frequently seen new managers blame the Customer - it seems to be related to a loyalist/chauvinistic thing; ‘my team is better than your team’. It is almost always misguided. To reduce your cost of poor quality reduce the defects that cause your Customers to complain. This si not about root fault, but causal mechanisms. And since the Customer has the money you want and they have other choices of where to spend their money, you need to make doing business with you easy.

I would like to second (or third?) the use of a Pareto analysis, and then if the quality issues are as widespread as they sound, do a triage with an immediate goal of understanding where best to direct attention and resources.

It isn't always necessary to plan "deep dives" if the goal is to address some problems. There are likely systematic issues contributing to what you are describing, but until you start addressing some of the surface level problems I suspect it is premature to assume that such systematic issues can be properly identified and that meaningful plans to address those would be actionable or effective. I prefer an Is/Is-Not analysis to start with, especially when there is a crisis (here, a crisis of quality); I think Is/Is-Not makes it easier to see the direct causes between issues, outcomes, corrections.

I also like the Is/Is-Not approach because (my opinion) it makes it can make it a little more obvious than other methods if any given proposed action won't obviously address the entire population of some set of possible causes. I don't mind leaving some potential areas of investigation explicitly unexplored, because there will be a clear(er) record of the paths taken/not-taken.

Have you read your marketing material so see what you are telling your customers about your product? Does it align with testing data?

nemo1 said:

Since I am new to QA management, I would love to hear some feedback regarding how to reduce our cost of poor quality and put resources in the right areas to address and deep dive into effective root cause and corrective actions as well.

Click to expand...

Another vote for a Pareto of the issues and work on the biggest impact issues first. Work as a team - this should not just be a "let quality fix it" kinda thing.

I am not unfamiliar with invalid customer complaints. In my experience somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of formal customer complaints received are not valid. However, most of that you mention are valid complaints! Stuff like "shipping to incorrect location, print skips, incorrect billing, incorrect purchase order number, dirty looking label" -- that all sounds valid. How would you react if your suppliers did this to you?

Mike S. said:

I am not unfamiliar with invalid customer complaints. In my experience somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of formal customer complaints received are not valid.

Click to expand...

Same here, but I have learned to be very cautious when investigating.

On the invalid side, I have seen a catalog temperature controller that was clearly identified for use in atmospheric conditions only and customers would use it to control the temperature of those lobster tanks you used to see in stores. The sensor would fail from water intrusion, and they would try to return them.

On the valid side, we would see a high percentage of a different product returned that would pass all functional testing and be classified as NPF. Later studies would show that there were legitimate but intermittent issues with the product, or issues (tin whiskers causing electrical shorts) that disappeared due to the vibration of the return shipment.

Miner said:

On the valid side, we would see a high percentage of a different product returned that would pass all functional testing and be classified as NPF. Later studies would show that there were legitimate but intermittent issues with the product, or issues (tin whiskers causing electrical shorts) that disappeared due to the vibration of the return shipment.

Click to expand...

Yep I've experienced that exact kinda intermittent issue. Took months to isolate.

"What are some questions you ask your customers to better understand their complaints?" Where's your pain?

"What is the proper way to push back to our customers and still keeping them happy and reduce our costs of quality?" Agree on requirements and what you are capable of delivering. Document that. Manufacture, test, and deliver conforming product.

nemo1 said:

"Such as it was their testing method that the label failed which we were unaware of, or a varnish on the label that they can run on now because the varnish caused the labels to be too slippery that should have been vetted through our R&D department.

Click to expand...

Golfman25 said:

I would go back and do a pareto chart of the problems.

Click to expand...

Golfman25 said:

From your description it sounds like you have a contract review/order entry issue. One thing is you need to make sure you understand the customer requirements And any technical issues.

Click to expand...

I agree with Golfman and others that you should look at the contract review process.

Perhaps when reviewing contracts, there should be information as to testing methods. Also, if you are the design authority, then perhaps part of the process could include a prototyping process and sign off by customer of the prototypes/design before production. Perhaps make this an 'option', and clarify in your sales terms and conditions that if this option is not chosen by the customer, there is a reduction in liability for finished goods that do not meet unspecified testing criteria.

And, referencing Golfman's comments again, a Pareto of the top issues will help identify the biggest issues that will yield the biggest "payback" in reducing the cost of poor quality once resolved.

It may be beneficial to inform you customers that their issue(s) has (have) been identified, and that your organization is addressing the issue(s) systemically, and that their corrective action response may not necessarily be specific to their one issue, but rather your response is systemic, and will apply to the 'bigger issue", so your response will read as such. That way, instead of filling out a CAR for each individual complaint, it will reflect the core issue(s). This may be a more efficient/effective way of moving the system forward.

Good luck, and report back for future readers!