 kenbadger wrote: |
| we've sold an average of over 100,000 units a year for the last 20+ years. that's 2,000,000, and that's less than half as long as we've been in business. our rate of return is less than 1% and we constantly strive for better. If that isn't a pretty good testament to Badger's consistent quality, I wouldn't know how to meet your apparent criteria for establishing a quality standard. |
|
First of all: I am talking in general terms, with no intended, suggested or implied product or brand in mind!
But you asked how to improve on quality. I will sketch my opinions.
The problem:
Just to play with the numbers mentioned: 1% returns on 100,000 sold items is still on the order 1000 problems per year, or between three and four and customer contacts per day. That takes time - somebody have to attend to the calls, find and ship replacement parts - and replacements and corrections (as well as postage and handling) cost $$$. Those costs would have to be covered, either by the customer, by the manufacturer facturing them in with all the other overhead of running a company, or as 'unexpected expenses', dipping into the annual profits.
And there is the neagtive PR to handle. We saw an example earlier in this thread, where somebody said flat out that he decided what brand to buy based on the absence of negative reviews.
Just imagine a first-time buyer of airbrushes who finds this forum to get ideas about what makes and brands of airbrushes to consider: He does not need to read any posts to get an opionon. Merely scanning the list of thread titles - this thread inclusive - would probably go a long way to suggest that one particular brand might best be avoided.
So, high numbers of customer returns cost time and $$$, and the experiences communicated throughout the user community might also turn potential buyers away from the product. Again, I am speaking in general terms with no particular product, make or brand in mind!
Not a desireable situation.
One solution: (I do not claim it's the only one!)
The way I am used to think about such matters is that proportionality numbers don't matter; absolute numbers do. What I try to do in such situations is to find out why one gets those returns. If there are particular problems that tend to dominate - e.g. some part that tends to fail - I'd go back and find out why that happens: Either there is a design problem, a manufacturing problem, or users might not be aware how the part is intended to be handled.
So depending on what one finds in the investigation, one has a number of options:
- Redesign the part or subassembly of the product
- Review the manufacturing process of the part or subassembly
- Review the documentation and operation manual that is shipped with the product
So if one or two types of flaws or problems tend to dominate why people return the product, then a focused effort to solve or avoid the root causes of those one or two problems would save a lot of time and effort. And of course, once the two presently largest flaws or problems have been handled, there will be two others that dominate the list of remaining problems. Solve those next year, and one is even better off.
And that's how I am used to think:
- Find out what happens
- Find out why it happens
- Correct the root cause / chain or event that produces the problem
- At all times address the one or two most dominating problem, solve them, and then focus on the next ones.
- Never settle for 'this is good enough.'
As for item 5), there might be a lot of reasons why one steps down from the process (relative expenses sky-rocket to solve diminishingly small hickups and inconveniences, the product being replaced by a new model next year), but 'this is good enough' is the one reason that is unacceptable.
DoC