Nobody likes customer complaints. However, when they occur, it’s important to implement interim containment action (ICA) actions firstly. We can distinguish them between such activities that are officially included in the complaint report.
The second group are those that we can check internally, but not necessarily without providing such information to the client.
Containment Action 1 – Checking previously implemented corrective actions (PCA)
The first action that we can check after receiving the complaint is to verify the effectiveness of the previously implemented permanent corrective actions. This applies in particular to the scenario that relates to the same failure mode of complaint notification. Examples include: the hard work of the seat adjustment lever, noise during headrest adjustment, or lack of assist.
Thanks to this, we can confirm at an early stage whether we are dealing with a defect that is already known to us. Why? Because during the verification, we can conclude that the previously taken actions are not effective, which gives us the above verification.
Another scenario concerns a positive verification result. If we find that all previously implemented actions are effective, it means that we are dealing with a completely new problem that needs to be solved.
Containment Action 2 – Process parameters verification
During process parameters verification, it is worth checking two things:
are control limits turned on? You don’t even want to see the look on my face when a I asked process engineer why a part was not “caught” on the final test. He’s replied that “we still have limits turned off.”
whether the values that can be downloaded from the process data are actual values. It turns out that the process engineers (I am not writing here for what reason) entered the off-set value in the machine settings, and instead of the result of 73 [N], the displayed value was 93 [N].
Fig. 1 Example of process parameters verification
It may turn out that thanks to this, we are dealing with an activity that I affectionately describe as “process catharsis”. It involves checking with a dedicated team whether the above topics are single isolated cases or whether we are dealing with a systemic issue.
Internal selection, that is, jumping from one problem to another?
After receiving information from the customer, it is a good idea to first ask for a photo with the traceability code. Every product sent to the customer should have it. Most often, they include information about part production date of the product, production shift, and production plant location. It may also contain more detailed information related to process parameters.
If we have the production date of claimed component, the first containment action that should be carried out is to check the internal selection date. Thanks to this, we can check whether there was no internal selection for a different type of problem at the time when the product was manufactured.
What can it be useful for? It is mainly related to the verification that the operator who performed the selection did not damage the part causing a different type of defect. This can happen both when picking-up parts from shipping containers and during the actual inspection repackaging.
It is also worth checking whether the selection instructions are understandable for employees and whether the operation is performed in a repeatable manner while maintaining appropriate ergonomics. Also, the lack of it may damage the product during selection, for example if the operator does not have enough space to perform his work.
You can download an automatic, editable Excel form for free on the Free Quality Tools
Document name: 8D Report – Excel form
Dariusz Kowalczyk
