Risk... and Returns
Risk... and Returns
Categories: Nokia 770, Nokia N800, quality, 623 words1 feedback •I'm repeating a little piece on production and quality assurance that I originally posted on the Internet Tablet Talk forum. Hopefully this will help those not involved with product development get a glimpse "under the hood". I have revised it a bit to make it more generic.
There is always a risk that the Unknown will impact the first units of any product distributed. Not necessarily the first ones produced, because test launch tends to occur under a microscope. During trial runs the bugs are expected to be ironed out so that consumers won't see defects-- and for the most part that works.
The problems that consumers may see typically occur when the process has been proven out but some fluke arises-- such as with a supplier's components. It's not always cost effective anymore to do 100% incoming screening so what's called an AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) inspection is performed that balances the expectations of the customer against the needs of production. 95% of the time this is effective.
Now, what can happen is that a supplier provides a defective component but due to luck of the draw the small number of products affected are not found in the AQL sample. This is rare but not unusual. Now, AQL sampling is designed to provide a significant level of confidence that you are failing an inspection for the right reasons-- NOT to justify passing it (the default).
Next, that small batch of missed defective products is shipped out to the wild and stocked at various retailers, in all probability widely dispersed although defective units can be clumped. Early adopters, unwilling to wait for the market to shake out such typical occurances, unwittingly buy the initial defective devices. They may make their complaints public. However, before they've even done so, the issue has usually been discovered internally as more are produced and corrective/preventive/containment measures are taken. Early in a device's life there won't be enough in the wild to justify a recall, so cases are handled as they are brought up. If severe defects show up later, odds are there will be many, many more devices affected and a recall would be more likely.
Now, that's all well and good IF the company involved has a robust reverse logistics system, because that's where you handle a small percentage of defects (as opposed to a blanket recall when there's a systemic flaw). Poor reverse logistics handling can quickly create the perception that a problem is larger in scope than it actually is. These days, a small number of buyers experiencing the defect will congregate in a topical internet forum and make their voices heard. If the manufacturer is not keeping their eye out for this activity, and engaging in meaningful damage control AND effective problem resolution, they can see their sales hurt. Sometimes the labyrinthine reverse logistics systems, especially those in a large corporation, impede or even prohibit customer feedback and so third-party fora become the best place to understand what's going wrong in the wild, and why. It is in the best interest of device manufacturers to monitor these online communities and even actively engage in them.
Bad devices happen. Perfection is practically unattainable. When 100% inspection is impractical, sampling remains the best overall method of intercepting those bad devices. That said, a company's repair/replacement process needs to be robust in order to close the loop. BUT: keep in mind that angry rants are counterproductive. If/when you can get through to company representatives, you need to keep your complaints objective and fact-based. Understand that screaming at those trying to help is self-defeating. Correction and improvement needs have to driven to the top in order to work. You want customer service personnel on your side.
Permalink
No Comments/Pingbacks for this post yet...
[Login...] [Register...]
