Last week I felt that I had taken appropriate and decisive action in response to our biggest and oldest customer’s complaint concerning some leaking bottles that one of his important customers was annoyed about. Whilst making it clear that Operations were accountable for handling the complaint, resolving the underlying issues and completing a report on this and some other apparently outstanding issues, I intervened. I strongly suggested that we send our van with a replacement pallet of product (all previously checked for leaks) and collect the offending pallet by return. As this was all in less than 24 hours of our receiving the complaint I was feeling pleased with myself. We had responded quickly, kept the customer informed, maybe set ourselves a new standard for responsiveness and would have the evidence with which to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation.

I was conscious that we now had a handful of complaints about at least two different examples of leaking bottles, one a long term issue, and I had the feeling that this would be a weeping sore with the customer forever referring to it unless we could act decisively and effectively.

On Monday when we inspected the returned bottles we found none was leaking, although many were dirty, and the pallet was 8 bottles short. So we had no evidence to work with. Then we were told that there was a history of complaints from this source relating to leaks from similar bottles emanating from either the seal inside the cap or from the point where bottle handle is connected to the bottle. This was the first that we were aware of  a significant history. They claimed that cost was a significant one to them: “we need to employ someone to deal with these leakers”. Meanwhile we inspected every bottle of the same products held in our stock. We found no leakers.

On Thursday someone from the Management Team visited to collect the leaking bottles and to talk with the people concerned in order to gather evidence. Beforehand we asked how many bottles were to be collected (to help us decide whether to go by car or to use the van again). We were told that the number was nineteen or twenty. We would need the van then. When the van returned on Thursday afternoon there were seven bottles returned, so we could have used a car!

A detailed assessment of the returned bottles remains to be made but they included examples of both forms of leak: a failure of the bottle at the handle junction and a failure of the induction heat seal of the cap. The visit elicited some useful information about how the bottles are packaged by the customer when sending them out by courier. If you have ever stood by as a courier driver loads his van when collecting parcels you will know that care in transit is very low on any courier’s list of priorities. To be fair it was much the same when I worked as a student in a Royal Mail parcels office one Christmas.

The good news is that our prompt and proactive action is earning some goodwill from our primary customer but this will be short-lived if we can’t produce a satisfactory explanation and a sustained resolution.

The problem seems to be threefold:

• a bottle defect with regards to a small hole that can appear in the bottle near to the handle when it is manipulated,
• a cap sealing defect that occurs when the filled and capped bottle is passed under the induction heat sealer
• a leak or damage that occurs when the pallet of cartons is shipped and mishandled when loading or unloading.

We have direct control of only one of these problems, the IHS sealing, and with that one it is difficult to eliminate the defect except with expensive 100% checking. This where strict set-up procedures and statistical process control need to be applied. Not a quick fix I fear!

The defective bottle is a matter for the bottle manufacturer and we have found that we have very little leverage there, particularly as by the time that the defect is identified we have lost any access to the original production lot data because we don’t track that data for packaging components. This is where we need to re-consider the cost v benefit of capturing that data.

The damage during shipment and handling is in our control in so far as we select the haulage company and we execute the pallet wrapping. The haulier has already agreed to provide an above industry standard of compensation for damage and we can upgrade our palletisation to provide corner-boards and double thickness of stretch film wrapping. We could also consider a 100% check on the leak integrity of all shipments to that particular customer until we have more data or we have recovered credibility with the customer.

Additionally we could adopt a more assertive stance with this, and possibly all, of our customers concerning the handling of complaints. For example we could apply a policy of responding to complaints with an immediate substitution provided that the complaint is made within 48 hrs of the original goods receipt or the delivery note is marked as “arrived damaged” and the original item is returned promptly for inspection or retained for our collection. Maybe in this day of the “app for everything” we should arrange an easy to use complaints portal that will help us to capture the data more reliably and to ensure that replacements are delivered and defects returned to us more quickly. In this way we may be able to tackle our own shortcomings, identify and address those of our supply-base and eliminate the running sores of “we always get these leaks”.

I wonder what our Operations report into the issues will come up with this week?