Quality Management in the Automotive Industry

Standardized process for

handling customers' complaints
Contents, documentation and explanation

2nd, revised edition, August 2020

Online Download Document
Standardized process for
handling customers’ complaints
Contents, documentation and explanation

2nd, revised edition, August 2020

Online Download Document
ISSN 0943-9412
Publication: Online document, August 2020

Copyright 2020 by

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
Behrenstraße 35, 10117 Berlin

Layout and printing:

Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH
Schwanheimer Straße 110, 60528 Frankfurt am Main
Non-binding VDA standard recommendation
The Association of the German Automotive Industry (VDA) recommends
its members to apply the following standard for the implementation and
maintenance of quality management systems.

Exclusion of liability
VDA volumes are recommendations available for general use. Anyone
applying them is responsible for ensuring that they are used correctly in
each case.

This VDA volume takes into account state of the art technology, current
at the time of issue. Implementation of VDA recommendations relieves
no one of responsibility for their own actions. In this respect, everyone
acts at their own risk. The VDA and those involved in VDA
recommendations shall bear no liability.

If during the use of VDA recommendations, errors or the possibility of

misinterpretation are found, it is requested that these be reported to the
VDA immediately so that any possible faults can be corrected.

Copyright
This publication is protected by copyright. Any use outside of the strict
limits of copyright law is not permissible without the consent of VDA and is
liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to copying, translation,
microfilming and storage or processing in electronic systems.

Translations
This publication will also be issued in other languages. The current
status must be requested from VDA QMC.

3
Foreword
This VDA volume replaces the first issue of the Standardized process for
handling customers’ complaints of 2009. This is a general revision taking
into account the experience and knowledge acquired in conjunction with
the implementation of the VDA volume Problem Solving in 8 Disciplines, etc.

Overall, it is intended to make it easier for automotive manufacturers and

suppliers to align themselves with the joint process for handling customers’
complaints. Accordingly, this VDA volume deals with new technologies,
business processes and services which have undergone significant further
development since 2009. Supplier portals for communication in companies
have also been evolving, and the technical basis for exchanging quality data
via QDX is dealt with in a separate VDA volume.

4
Index of contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 7
1.1 Scope ......................................................................................... 7
1.2 Goals .......................................................................................... 8
1.3 Cooperation and communication ................................................. 8
1.4 Associated VDA Volumes ............................................................ 9
1.5 Classification of the Standardized Complaint Handling Process .. 11
1.6 Limitations ................................................................................ 11
2 The reject handling process.................................................................... 13
2.1 Reject handling process overview .............................................. 13
2.2 Trigger matrix ........................................................................... 15
2.3 Role definitions and skills .......................................................... 15
2.4 Process elements ...................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Clarification and analysis of a symptom .............................. 17
2.4.2 Immediate actions (customer) ............................................ 19
2.4.3 Clarifying and analysing the complaint ............................... 20
2.4.4 Immediate actions (supplier) .............................................. 21
2.4.5 Problem and cause analysis ............................................... 23
2.4.6 Corrective actions and effectiveness check......................... 25
2.4.7 Conclusion and evaluation by the customer ........................ 27
2.4.8 Complaint report ................................................................ 28
2.5 Cascading ................................................................................. 29
2.6 Opportunities and risks ............................................................. 31
3 Communication ....................................................................................... 33
3.1 The basics of communication .................................................... 33
3.2 Report formats and systems ...................................................... 35
3.2.1 Communication matrix ....................................................... 35
3.2.2 Inspection report................................................................ 37
3.2.3 Full complaint report .......................................................... 37
3.2.4 Abridged complaint report ................................................. 38
3.2.5 Communication via portals ................................................. 39

5
 3.2.6 Voluntary disclosure........................................................... 39
4 Process timeline and deadlines .............................................................. 41
4.1 Defining milestones and lead times ........................................... 41
4.2 Deadlines in the reject handling process ................................... 44
4.3 Shortened time limits in urgent cases ........................................ 46
4.4 Approval of time extensions ...................................................... 46
4.5 Recommendations for processing times..................................... 46
5 Additional applications for the complaint handling process ................ 48
5.1 Software complaints .................................................................. 48
5.2 Logistic complaints ................................................................... 49
5.3 Service complaints .................................................................... 50
5.4 Spare parts complaints after EOP (end of production) ............... 50
5.5 Complaints before SOP (start of production) .............................. 51
5.6 Complaints over security modules ............................................. 51
5.7 Complaints over EOS (electrical overstress) cases ...................... 52
5.8 Complaints over parts specified by customer (“directed source”) 52
5.9 Complaints over standard parts ................................................. 53
5.10 Complaints over free-issue items ............................................... 53
5.11 Complaint without part .............................................................. 53
5.12 System failure despite components conforming with specifications
54
Glossary............................................................................................................ 55
List of figures ................................................................................................... 59
List of tables .................................................................................................... 60
Appendix .......................................................................................................... 61

Note: terms in boldface are explained in Section 6 – Glossary

6
1 Introduction
The Standardized Process for handling customers’ complaints regulates the
common workflow at the interface between suppliers and customers.
Specific or special needs are left to the business partners for contractual
settlement.

1.1 Scope
This VDA Volume Standardized process for handling customers’ complaints,
is applicable to the manufacturing processes in the automotive industry.

The process is geared to the complete product life cycle of vehicles.

Complaints often occur before the start of production (“SOP”) in the product
development process phase. One focus is on the series production phase
with so-called 0 km complaints and field complaints. In the case of a 0 km
complaint, the rejected items have not yet driven any (so zero) kilometres in
the whole vehicle. This contrasts with the items installed in the vehicle,
which only fail after mileage and depend on the specific conditions of the
field. In addition, this Standardized Complaint Process is used in many other
cases, which are discussed in the following chapters.

The VDA volume is aimed at vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, from

large corporations to small, specialized companies such as the so-called
“Sam Steel”.

“Sam Steel” stands for the prototype of an active entrepreneur. What Sam
knows best is his steel products and how to motivate his little team to
greatness. He is enough of a businessman to understand that, these days,
quality management can have a serious impact on his success.

This VDA volume provides all market participants with a practical

description of a standardized complaint process between supplier and
customer.

7
1.2 Goals
The concept of a complaint process has not changed significantly since the
first issue of the VDA volume Standardized process for handling customers’
complaints in 2009. In addition to complaint communication and its
handling of rejected goods, it also includes the planning, implementation
and monitoring of all corrective actions. Success relies on high-quality fault
analysis of the product, manufacturing process or service.

The latest challenges in complaint management are the digitalization of

products and whole vehicles, the internationalization of product
development, in supply chains that span the globe and include numerous
supplier interfaces, long transport routes and complex manufacturing
process chains. In these circumstances, how can we go about finding and
analysing an instance of “bit flips”? Or the cause of an “electrical overstress”
leading to a function failure? Could a software error be the culprit behind an
unwanted display output?

In this complex environment, successfully handling complaints and

correcting errors requires a strong, cooperative relationship between
partners. That’s why these guidelines emphasize a uniform reject handling
process with efficient process interfaces, cascade process flow in long
supply chains and strong, productive communication between partners.

1.3 Cooperation and communication

Some aspects of this section can be fairly anticipated in advance. In the
global structure of the automotive industry, when it comes to correcting
deviations, all partners are called upon to act cooperatively – in the spirit of
teamwork. For the companies involved, this means active dialogue,
transparency (and availability) of data and swift, focussed processing.

As part of a cooperative partnership, information should also always be

used in the context of a potential voluntary disclosure; in case of confirmed
facts, disclosure to the customer or customers is actually mandatory. This

8
approach enables the customers and suppliers to meet their obligations to
their mutual customer or vehicle user and society (represented by
authorities in the markets) and to protect the customer and society.

1.4 Associated VDA Volumes

In addition to this edition of Standardized process for handling customers’
complaints, VDA QMC also offers individual volumes on elaborated subjects
closely related to the reject handling process (Figure 1).

9
Figure 1: How Standardized Process for Handling Customers’ Complaints ties in with other VDA publications on related subjects

10
1.5 Classification of the Standardized
Complaint Handling Process
The Standardized Complaint Handling Process should always be followed –
regardless of severity, supply chain, time frame, failure volume or other risks.
Even complex issues like software or service complaints follow the standard
described. Chapter 5 provides a number of examples.

In each case, specific prerequisites are identified for initiating a reject

handling process. One such prerequisite is for the customer and supplier to
both have implemented a quality management system. The reject handling
process should therefore be considered part of a superordinate customer
problem-solving process. At the start, it provides concrete, maximally
comprehensive information, e.g. on failure symptoms and initial analysis
results which the customer uses to indicate the failure to the supplier and
eventually initiate their reject handling process.

There are likewise defined criteria for the conclusion of the reject handling
process. Finally, this process end can trigger follow-up processes on the
customer side, e.g. the adjustment of testing processes or modification of
approval procedures, which this VDA publication will not get (any further)
into.

1.6 Limitations
The recommendations of this VDA publication, Standardized process for
handling customers’ complaints, apply to all customer-supplier relations not
subject to any relevant customer-specific agreements.

Suppliers are under no obligation to comply with these guidelines unless

required by the customer to comply with the reject handling process
described herein – e.g. as part of an order specification or corresponding
quality assurance or purchase agreements between customer and supplier.

11
If there are any individual, specific agreements on the complaint handling
process or on individual sections of this VDA volume between supplier and
customer, these must be complied with as a priority.

Key performance indicators (KPI), operating figures, deadlines, costs, etc.

are always to be regulated in specific contracts between suppliers and
customers.

The commercial handling of a complaint handling process is also done

based on the specific agreement made between customer and supplier.

12
2 The reject handling process
The purpose of this reject handling process is to provide a basis for
cooperation between customers and suppliers, which would effectively
protect both parties in case of failures and minimize the effects of deviations
by maintaining production with defect-free products. The action plan always
depends on the specific situation.

In addition, the reject handling process always offers an opportunity for

continuous improvement, both for the supplier and for the customer and
particularly helps suppliers to meet customer requirements even better.

2.1 Reject handling process overview

A complaint always originates from the observation of a deviation from an
expected product behaviour during the product life cycle.

The process described herein is intended to provide guidelines for how to

accurately identify the underlying causes through efficient cooperation
between customer and supplier and how to implement effective corrective
and preventive measures.

Figure 2 presents an overview of the standardized process for handling

customers’ complaints, along with the associated roles. The immediate
actions at the customer’s site are not part of the standardized process for
handling customers’ complaints and will therefore not be discussed further.

13
Figure 2: Overview of the standardized process for handling customers’ complaints, including the associated roles

14
Healthy cooperation between customers and suppliers is based on intensive
communication and mutual exchange of information. Complaint processing
is initiated in conjunction with the problem-solving process at the
customer’s site. This problem-solving process is not covered in this VDA
volume.

In order to achieve the aforementioned process goal, the reject handling

process needs to include certain elements and executive roles. These
elements are summarized in Figure 2 in their logical order and in
association with their corresponding roles.

The individual elements with their inputs and outputs and the executive
roles will now be described in detail.

2.2 Trigger matrix

The triggering of a claim follows consistent patterns. Different procedures
are recommended, depending on whether it’s a 0km or a field complaint
and whether the symptom is new or already known.

The trigger matrix in Appendix C offers an introductory overview.

2.3 Role definitions and skills

The reject handling process requires the following roles:

• Customer’s complaint officer

• Supplier’s complaint officer
• Problem-solving officer with team

15
These people should have the necessary expertise within their companies in order to be able to discharge the
following duties (Figure 3):

Figure 3: Role description in the Standardized Process for Handling Customers’ Complaints

16
Each company can opt to combine or subdivide these roles as they see fit.
However, the functions/responsibilities described do need to be covered.

2.4 Process elements

In order to achieve the process objective, a reject handling process requires
various elements, as set out below.

2.4.1 Clarification and analysis of a symptom

Clarification and analysis

of a symptom

Objective and result of the process element

(cf. Figure 4):

If a deviation from the expected product behaviour is observed, this

deviation should be described in such a way as to allow the potentially
responsible supplier to initiate an efficient failure verification process and
implement effective immediate actions.

In order to achieve this, the failure description should include the elements
necessary as the starting point for an IS/IS NOT analysis, if available. It
should therefore include the following information relating to the observed
defect (Table 1), also refer to VDA publication 8D – Problem-Solving in 8
Disciplines, p. 55.

17
Table 1: Explanation of failure description
Elements of the failure Problem Possible answers (not
description necessarily
exhaustive)

Object identification: Which Part number, batch

product/process does number, delivery note
the problem affect? number

Failure description: Which deviation is it, Deviation from the

and how is it agreed feature and
identified? associated measuring
procedure

Failure location: Where was the Customer's plant,

product/process when production line, final
the deviation occurred customer, etc.
for the first time?

Where on the Where/at which Coordinates,

defective object: location on the visualization with
product did the image
deviation occur?

First occurrence: When did the Date, time

deviation first occur?

Pattern of occurrence: Do the failures appear Periodic, non-

to be systematic? recurring, as of a
certain point in time,
random

In which process step: Where/at which point Incoming goods

in the process did the inspection, during
deviation occur? installation, ...

Frequency: How many failures Number, failure rate,

have occurred? yield loss

18
If this information makes it possible to attribute a potentially responsible
party, it must be made available to the supplier.

For the purpose of a subsequent problem analysis at the supplier’s facility, if

possible, it is preferable to have graphically represented data and defective
parts, along with defect-free reference parts.

Figure 4: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“Clarification and analysis of a symptom and preliminary attribution of a cause”

2.4.2 Immediate actions (customer)

The immediate actions at the customer’s site are not part of the
standardized process for handling customers’ complaints and will therefore
not be discussed further.

19
2.4.3 Clarifying and analysing the complaint

Clarifying and
analysing the complaint

Objective and result of the process element

(cf. Figure 5):

In the process element “Clarifying and analysing the complaint”, the

supplier’s complaint officer has to plan and implement appropriate
analytical steps which make it possible to perform an assessment in order to
identify the product manufacturing process responsible for the defect. At
the end of this process element, there is a refined description of the
problem, which makes the deviation understandable regarding the
potentially affected product manufacturing process or leads to a reasoned
rejection of the complaint.

The potentially affected process could be within the operations of the

supplier itself, those of a sub-supplier, or those of the customer. The
procedure for cases where a sub-supplier is at fault is described farther
down in the section 2.5 “Cascading”.

For the cause analysis that now follows, it is helpful to have a problem
description that also includes all the elements necessary as the starting
point for an IS/IS NOT analysis, for example, and which will ultimately be
required in order to devise failure hypotheses. These results should be made
available to the owner of the potentially responsible process, in an
appropriate form and, if possible, along with defective parts and defect-free
reference parts.

20
Figure 5: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“clarification and analysis of the complaint”

2.4.4 Immediate actions (supplier)

Immediate actions

Objective and result of the process element

(Figure 6)

Effective immediate actions should be implemented and updated during the

entire complaint phase in order to protect both the customer and the
supplier from any further damages. In particular, the goal should be to
maintain continuous production at the customer, taking into account all
qualitative (e.g. safety-critical, functional) requirements.

The action plan comprises two levels. First, it is necessary to make decisions

21
as to the continued use of the existing products, based on all the available
facts. Then, at the process level, it is necessary to prevent the manufacture
of any additional defective products.

Decisions at the product level are the responsibility of the supplier’s

complaint officer. Preventing the manufacture of further defective products
is the responsibility of the problem-solving officer with team. As part of a
cooperative partnership, the parties should also consider expanding the
action plan in case potentially defective products have been delivered to
other customers, as well.

For a transparent result, it helps to compile a list of all the measures

implemented, including the degrees of effectiveness and, if need be, the
underlying assumptions. If the immediate measures have an impact on the
customer or his processes, these effects should be communicated to the
customer.

At the end of the complaint process, after the implementation of permanent

corrective actions, check to ensure that all immediate measures have been
rescinded. This also serves as a “hidden” effectiveness check for the
selected permanent corrective actions.

22
Figure 6: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“immediate actions (supplier)”

2.4.5 Problem and cause analysis

Problem and
cause analysis

Goal and result of the process element

(Figure 7)

Permanent corrective measures implemented during the reject handling

process are based on the underlying causes. For this reason, both the
causes of the occurrence of the error and the reasons why defective goods
were nevertheless delivered should be determined in the problem and
cause analysis. The analysis should be carried out on both a technical and
systemic level.

Various methods can be used to find the causes, some of which are
described in the VDA Volume Problem Solving in 8 Disciplines (Chapter D4

23
– Root Cause Analysis). What these methods have in common is the
objective to provide verified hypotheses, i.e. to use appropriate tests in order
to provide proven root causes and, possibly, excludable root causes.

If no clear cause can be found or confirmed, the customer and supplier

should agree on how to proceed. See also VDA Volume Field Failure
Analysis.

For a complete description of the cause, it is best to compile a list of all the
technical and systemic root causes, both for the occurrence and the non-
detection of the error. Verification can be done using methods and tools
that visualize the cause-effect chain from the root cause to the customer’s
failure pattern. Based on the verified root causes, the immediate measures
should also be reviewed again.

Figure 7: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element “problem
and cause analysis”

24
2.4.6 Corrective actions and effectiveness check

Corrective actions and

effectiveness check

Goal and result of the process element

(Figure 8):

After all root causes have been identified, appropriate corrective actions
must be searched for, selected and implemented.

It can be useful to distinguish between failures, the cause of which is a

temporary fault or the process capability during manufacture. While in the
first case clear immediate measures and corrective measures can usually be
taken, improvements in process capability often require a sum of measures,
especially if the failure rates are already low. Customer and supplier should
check whether such a distinction can be used in complaints for their
products and, if necessary, agree on a procedure such as time-based
failurer rate reduction goals.

Tip: The expected effectiveness and efficiency should preferably be factored

into the corrective measure selection process. The technical root causes
should be eliminated by means of corrective measures, while preventive
measures should be devised for systemic root causes in particular.
Technical, ideally Poka Yoke measures are to be preferred over
organizational measures (e.g. “staff training”).

During and after the implementation of action plans, the actual

effectiveness should be checked and documented. Any immediate actions
that may still be in effect should be checked and rescinded if necessary.

If corrective measures require making changes to the product or production

process, the changes must be approved in accordance with the approval
procedure agreed between the customer and the supplier (e.g. VDA Volume
2 Production Process and Product Approval (PPA)).

25
If a corrective measure, which was previously introduced (possibly also in
the process at a subcontractor) and related to a specific cause of defect,
was not fully effective, this cause is called a "cause of repetition".

This classification is only possible after the analysis has been completed
and is only given if a known cause of defect occurs on a part with a
production date that is after the date of the introduction of corrective
measure.

This volume deliberately speaks of "cause of repetition", the term "repetition

of defect", which is also common, is less precise.

Figure 8: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element “Corrective
actions and effectiveness check/long-term failure correction”

26
2.4.7 Conclusion and evaluation by the customer

Conclusion and
evaluation

Objective and result of the process element

(Figure 9)

As soon as all agreed criteria (e.g. causes and actions documented in the
report, effectiveness indicated, etc.) have been met, the participants should
formally conclude the reject handling process.

Tip: Customer and Supplier should preferably use a criteria catalogue to

check whether the agreed results have been achieved, make adjustments if
necessary and finally conclude the reject handling process.

Figure 9: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“conclusion and evaluation”

27
2.4.8 Complaint report

Complaint
report

Goal and result of the process element

(Figure 10)

Once all root causes have been identified and eliminated by effective
corrective actions in accordance with the sections “Cause Analysis &
Corrective Actions” and “Effectiveness Check”, this information should be
given to the direct business partner (customer). The customer should work
with the direct supplier towards bringing the claim to a close by evaluating
the results. However, only the customer who triggered the complaint can
declare the claim definitively closed.

Figure 10: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“complaint report”

28
2.5 Cascading
Many products are now manufactured in a production sequence involving
multiple suppliers. In this section, the procedure for a reject where multiple
partners are involved in one complaint situation, is described.

The reject is triggered in the same way as in the procedure described

earlier. The complaint clarification and analysis are also the same, to start
off with. If it turns out that the process in which the defect originally
occurred belongs to another supplier, a complaint must be triggered against
that supplier.

The party triggering this complaint takes on the role of the complaint officer
– customer. How these roles are allocated within a company is up to the
company to decide. However, these functions/responsibilities do need to be
covered.

The required results/outputs of the process element “Clarifying and

analysing the complaint” are the same, and the subsequent procedures for
the other supplier are also the same, including the required immediate
action. If it makes sense to do so, this process should also be expanded to
other parties involved in the supply chain.

Figure 11 presents an overview of the cascade.

29
Figure 11: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element “cascading”

30
2.6 Opportunities and risks
The purpose of implementing the processes described herein is to
successfully handle complaints and eliminate failures under mutual
cooperation. “Successfully” means, in particular, that the requirements
agreed upon by the customer and supplier are met. All process participants
should therefore define and implement effective measures so that the
requirements can be met and desirable effects (opportunities) are
reinforced while undesirable effects (risks) are excluded as much as
possible. Here are some examples of opportunities and risks related to
requirements (Table 2).

31
Table 2: Possible opportunities and risks in the reject handling process
Party Requirement Opportunities Risks
primarily
affected

Customer, Effective and Established, fast and Inefficient cooperation if

supplier efficient complaint transparent procedure. roles are not clearly
processing Long-term learning described and data to
through constructive be exchanged is not
cooperation clearly defined

Customer, Rapid damage Effective minimization Non-specific and

supplier control in the event of consequences by ineffective immediate
of a failure identifying affected actions due to imprecise
goods with failure description
comprehensive failure
description

Supplier The process Customer satisfaction, Recurrence of faults,

supports lasting trust, product and aggravated customers
and transparent quality improvement
problem-solving

Customer Fast problem- Causes of defects found Prolonged

solving and eliminated quickly troubleshooting and
with comprehensive delayed implementation
failure description of corrective actions
due to imprecise failure
description

Customer, Requirements- Customers can Differing evaluation of

supplier compliant problem- negotiate metrics for complaints due to the
solving based on problem-solving lack of mutually agreed
mutual standards evaluation with requirements
suppliers and
continuously improve
by mutually comparing
results

32
3 Communication
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place." (George Bernard Shaw).

All too often, we instinctively assume that our business partner already has
all the pertinent information, only to find out that, for any number of
reasons, this is not the case. One reason could easily be that, while the
information was available, the business partner had not actually taken
notice of it.

To clarify an issue both speedily and thoroughly, it is essential to talk to one

another directly (generally by phone). Always make sure, however, to keep
transparent records of any key agreements and results for both sides to
refer to afterwards. Despite all your personal arrangements, everything
should be documented in writing and, if need be, via email or electronic
systems. The specific form depends on the specific agreements between
customer and supplier.

Communication must be ensured by both sides, including contact persons,

their accessibility and the language to be used.

3.1 The basics of communication

A comprehensive complaint handling process requires good
communication. Even the best complaint processing is worthless if the
results are not properly communicated and documented.

The reject handling process requires timely, continuous, proactive, and

transparent communication throughout the entire process flow. Clear and
open communication fosters trust. And trust is a good foundation for
successful collaboration, especially in the case of claims for rejection.
Figure 12 presents the recommended reporting dates within the
standardized reject handling process.

33
Figure 12: Recommended reporting dates (*)

34
As always, it is to differentiate between the process and the “tool” being
utilized. This VDA volume focuses on the actual subject matter, i.e. the
“process”. The “tool” – the systems used for communication – in other
words, the “how” aspect, will not be covered in this VDA volume.

The goal of communication is always to relay the results of each process

step in full.

The following timing is recommended for the complaint report, including

interim reports (also refer to * in Figure 12):

1. Initial, where appropriate informal, feedback within 24 hours (not

counting weekends or holidays), this applies in particular if there is
no gain in knowledge.

2. Upon completion of each process step, as per Chapter 2

3. Also, any time there are important new findings or developments.

In each process step, communication is considered complete when the

recipient of the information is satisfied, i.e. communication is complete from
their perspective, too. This could also be the supplier, which relies on
comprehensive information from the customer’s inspection report.

3.2 Report formats and systems

3.2.1 Communication matrix

The following communication matrix describes the recommended minimum

requirements for communication in each phase of the reject handling
process (Table 3).

35
Table 3: Communication matrix
In which Contents Sender Receiver
phase?
Clarification Failure description: Customer’s Supplier’s
and analysis of - What product (object)? complaint officer complaint officer
a symptom - What failure (symptom)?
- Where found (failure location)?
- Where on the object?
- When (first occurrence)?
- In which process step?
- How (pattern of occurrence)?
- How many times (failure rate)?
if possible, supported by images, videos,
graphics, data, failure patterns

Effective cooperation based on active communication and coordination in both directions

Clarification Constructive failure description Supplier’s Customer’s
and analysis of Preliminary cause attribution (internal or complaint officer complaint officer
the complaint external) Supplier’s problem
Information on the analysis results -solving team
Rejection of claim with justification Supplier’s Customer’s
complaint officer complaint officer
Immediate Customer expectations/information on Customer’s Supplier’s
actions immediate actions on customer end (ex: complaint officer complaint officer
inventories, contact info of the rework
companies, etc.)
Info on immediate actions implemented on Supplier’s Customer’s
customer end (ex: contracting of ext. service complaint officer complaint officer
providers)
Info on immediate actions implemented on Supplier’s Customer’s
supplier end/in the supply chain, incl. status complaint officer complaint officer
report, clean point delivery Supplier’s problem
-solving team
Problem and Results of cause analysis with: Supplier’s Supplier’s
cause analysis - Technical root cause for occurrence and problem-solving complaint officer
non-detection team
- Systemic root cause for occurrence and
non-detection
- Confirmation of cause
if possible, supported by images, videos, Supplier’s Customer’s
graphics, data, etc. complaint officer complaint officer
Corrective Info on planned/implemented corrective and Supplier’s Customer’s
actions and preventive measures on the supplier end/in complaint officer complaint officer
effectiveness the supply chain with:
check - Scheduled dates/implementation date
- Person in charge
- Effectiveness check
- Clean point
if possible, supported by images, videos,
graphics, data, etc.
Information/partial report on planned Supplier’s Customer’s
corrective and preventive measures complaint officer complaint officer
Conclusion Approval/rejection of the final complaint Customer’s Supplier’s
and evaluation report complaint officer complaint officer
Later submission of missing/necessary Supplier’s Customer’s
information complaint officer complaint officer

36
3.2.2 Inspection report

The reject handling process is typically triggered by an inspection report.

The inspection report is sometimes referred to as the “rejection”.

Refer to Appendix A for a suggested template of such an inspection report,

containing the required information (“elements of the failure description”).
The format is not mandatory, but we do recommend recreating the contents.
You should be familiar with the “elements of the failure description” from
the explanation in Chapter 2, so they won’t be described in detail here.

Communication generally takes place directly between the parties who have
entered into a business relationship for the affected services or products
and/or intermediate products. But it could also be necessary or at least
advisable to make a arrangements directly between OEM and tier-n
supplier. This requires the consent of all parties involved.

3.2.3 Full complaint report

The complaint report is often referred to as the “opinion statement”.

The complaint report essentially comprises the findings from the process
steps in Chapter 2. An example report is provided in the appendix, but no
specific guidelines for a findings report are given, since there are already a
plethora of formats in the industry. Instead, we recommend a check to
ensure that the format intended to use covers the recommended minimum
information. This information is briefly summarized below. For an example
findings report, refer to Appendix B.

Minimum information to include:

1. Part designation, batch, delivery, etc. from inspection report

2. Test report number/reference number

3. Problem description

37
 4. Restriction of products/material under suspicion (exact point in
time, serial number, delivery number, etc.)

5. Immediate actions/implementation date

6. Differentiation between up to four root causes:

a. Technical and systemic root cause as well as

b. Technical and systemic non-detection

7. Preliminary corrective action/implementation date

8. Final corrective action (separate for root cause and cause of non-
detection)/implementation date

9. As of when did OK delivery commence? (exact point in time, serial

number, delivery number, etc.)

10. Prevention of recurrence

3.2.4 Abridged complaint report

Under certain circumstances, some of the elements of a complete findings

report will not be necessary (“abridged complaint report”). Examples of such
circumstances include:

1. Logistical complaint

2. EOS (Electrical Overstress)

3. Supplier not responsible/rejection of claim

Note: the example report in 8D – Problem-Solving in 8 Disciplines normally

also covers these requirements – and, accordingly, the customer
requirements for the findings report, as well.

38
3.2.5 Communication via portals

Communication regarding complaints generally takes place via customer-

specific portals. Tier1 through tier n suppliers (typically) have to use multiple
different customer portals.

In the interest of complete and error-free communication, we recommend

that the business partners also communicate face-to-face or by phone, in
addition to using the various portals.

In this regard, we refer you to the recommendations in VDA Volume 7

Exchanging Quality Data/QDX – Quality Data eXchange).
Volume 7 describes procedures and electronic data exchange formats for
various types of cooperation between business partners, from product
development all the way to series production.

In the interest of efficient communication throughout the supply chain,

during the reject handling process, the business partners should put in
place and jointly utilize the technical means of exchanging quality data
described in Volume 7.

The expected benefit of this for the entire supply chain is time and cost
savings. This is achieved by reducing the amount of duplicate work when
transferring data from “in-house” portals to various customer portals (faster
data entry). Combined with improved data quality, this ensures complete
and error-free communication in the reject handling process.

3.2.6 Voluntary disclosure

If a supplier already realizes before the customer that his delivered products
deviate from the specification, he is obliged to inform the customer of this
on his own initiative (see also IATF 16949, section 8.7.1.1 ff).

This enables the customer to implement measures devised jointly with the
supplier at an early stage and minimize any potential damage. The supplier
remains responsible for corrective actions as well as a structured problem
solving and a complaint report even in the case of voluntary notification.

39
Nevertheless, such an act attests to the supplier's sense of responsibility,
and it is good practice to appreciate such behaviour on the part of the
customer.

Depending on the situation and/or agreements and terms of purchase, the

supplier may be obligated to disclose the issue. This is especially applicable
in cases where failure to disclose certain information to the customer could
potentially lead to safety problems.

Disclosure can also be mandatory if the supplier delivers identical parts to

multiple customers and one of the customers files a complaint. In this case,
if other customers could also be affected, the supplier is typically required to
notify them all without being prompted to do so.

40
4 Process timeline and deadlines
The common goal of customer and supplier should be to complete the
complaint process without any unnecessary delays, in order to minimize the
effects of the failure as quickly as possible and keep the cost of immediate
actions low.

This goal should be pursued throughout all customer-supplier relationships,

over the entire supply chain.

Should the “clarifying and analysing the complaint” step indicate that the
defect originates not from the supplier (=tier 1) but from another external
supplier (=tier 2), cascading takes place within the supply chain. This
means: multiple reject handling processes are running concurrently in the
supply chain (OEM with tier 1+ tier 1 with tier 2, etc.) Due to this cascading
of the reject handling process, process steps could occur simultaneously.
However, there could also be delays, depending on the potential need to
wait for the intermediate findings of another partner.

In order to achieve the aforementioned objective – preventing unnecessary

delays – all parties involved need to collaborate closely with regard to
timelines and deadlines.

4.1 Defining milestones and lead times

For defining lead times, let’s refer back to the process diagram. This time,
we’ve added set times t0 through t6 at the start and end of each process
step (Figure 13).

41
Figure 13: Standardized customer complaint process as it relates to milestones and lead times

42
T0 – initial occurrence at the customer’s site

T0 refers to the date when the customer detected a potential deviation in a

part in his process. At this point, the customer, at their facility, begins the
“clarification and analysis of a symptom” step, attributing the deviation to a
part (and potentially to a supplier).

T1 – Submission of the claim to the supplier

T1 is the point in time when the customer submits a claim to the supplier
regarding the deviation. This is the start of the “clarifying and analysing the
complaint” step.

T2 – Initial response from the supplier

T2 is the time of the initial response from the supplier, e.g. within 24h (also
refer to 4.6). The supplier confirms receipt of the complaint, informs the
customer of any initial actions if possible and clears up any potentially open
questions with the customer

T3 – Cause relayed to the customer

T3 is the time when the supplier has determined the results of the
systematic cause analysis and informed the customer (i.e. D4 in the 8D
report)

T4 – Corrective actions planned, not yet implemented

T4 is the time when the supplier has determined and scheduled the planned
corrective actions and informed the customer (i.e. D5 in the 8D report)

T5 – Completion of all corrective actions

T5 is the time when the supplier has implemented corrective actions based
on the cause and performed the necessary effectiveness verification and
informed the customer.

T6 – Conclusion of the complaint process

T6 is the time when the customer reviews and evaluates the supplier’s
complaint report. The complaint is deemed closed upon acceptance of the
complaint report by the customer.

43
Lead times

The overall lead time for the reject handling process is obtained by
calculating the time difference between milestones t0 and t6.

Overall lead time = t6 – t0

The supplier lead time for the reject handling process is obtained by
calculating the time difference between milestones t1 and t5. If a damaged
part is absolutely necessary for an inspection, the supplier lead time can
only begin in consultation with the customer when the component is
received.

Supplier lead time = t5 – t1

When determining the lead times, it may be necessary to take into account
that the effectiveness check can only take place later due the influencing
factors mentioned in chapter 4.2.

4.2 Deadlines in the reject handling process

Deadlines, as well as the associated milestones in the complaint handling
process are generally agreed by contract between customer and supplier
and cannot be specified in this VDA volume.

To allow for the swiftest possible implementation of immediate and

corrective actions, all parties should strive to process the complaint quickly
and stay within the agreed time limits. This requires clear and timely
communication along the entire supply chain.

If certain influencing factors make it impossible to stay on the required

schedule, the supplier must request an extension as soon as possible and
before the actual deadline. The same goes for deadlines which have already
been pushed back previously.

44
Relevant influencing factors include, for example:

• Long delivery routes/times

• Complex/long supply chains

• Long-time tests for product testing

• Complex technologies/analyses

• Tool changes

• Product lead time and/or manufacturing lead time (no quick

changes possible)

In cases in which the implementation of final corrective measures typically

requires long period of time, we recommend the customer and supplier
conclude a different sort of agreement regarding the milestones.

This agreement can consist, for example, of a binding implementation

schedule for the formal completion of the complaint handling process. A
final implementation may take place afterwards.

In the interest of a long-term solution to the problem, the customer should

allow for these time extension and milestone adjustment possibilities.

The process can be evaluated with the following key figures (suggestion):

• Schedule compliance in % = number of deadlines kept/number of

required deadlines (deadline extensions replace the originally
required deadlines)
• Average processing time per required milestone in days = sum of
the days needed per milestone/number milestones

45
4.3 Shortened time limits in urgent cases
In highly urgent cases, the way the partners work together can change in
the interest of mutual and speedy damage control – with individually
coordinated and, if necessary, shortened time limits.

Modified prioritisation primarily affects the urgency of immediate actions

and not the complaint handling process flow – the formal process should
still be followed.

Legal and regulatory requirements must be observed.

4.4 Approval of time extensions

It is recommended to extend time extension requests and approvals in
writing. In the application, the reasons for the time extension as well as a
suggestion for a deadline that can be kept should be clearly explained.
Modified deadlines must be documented in the appropriate systems in
order to allow for accurate assessment (e.g. based on key figures).

In order to keep administrative work to a minimum on both sides, specific

deadlines can be fixed for individual parts or product groups to prevent
additional extensions due to already known issues.

4.5 Recommendations for processing times

Customer and supplier should communicate openly, on time, and
proactively in order to minimize the effects of deviations as much as
possible and allow for production of defect-free products to continue.

Special attention should be given to the initial response (t1) from the
supplier to the customer upon receiving the 0km complaint. It directly
contributes to a better understanding of the scope of the problem. It is also
helpful for promptly defining and implementing appropriate immediate
actions on both the supplier side and the customer side. This initial

46
response should therefore come promptly and within the first 24 hours.

Examples of initial response contents:

• Can the defect be restricted to certain batches in case of multiple

NOK parts?
• Review of the failure statistics on the supplier side
• Were concurrent validation checks performed, documented,
read/understood, and, if necessary, was an action plan derived from
these checks?
• Do the validations and testing equipment work properly?
• Is the “end of line test” (EoL test) able to detect defects?
• Were any changes made to the process during the relevant time
period? (e.g. staff turnover, equipment repairs, etc.)
• Which inventories need to be checked? (e.g. on the production line,
in the warehouse, in transit, at the customer’s facility, etc.)
• Questions from the supplier in order to better understand and
minimize the problem (e.g. equipment variants, location of
discovery, etc.).
The quality of the feedback is also largely dependent on the quality of the
customer's failure description.

The specific action plan always depends on the situation. The measures
outlined herein are therefore intended only as examples, not as a sequence
of actions that necessarily must be covered in every possible situation.

Field failures are usually processed within a different timeframe due to the
need to return parts from the field. Therefore, a first feedback after 24 hours,
for example, is usually not necessary. However, critical failure patterns (e.g.
safety, premature failures, etc.) can render the procedures described in this
section necessary as well.

For the other milestones (t3 through t6), a speedy communication is

recommended, if the required level of knowledge in the problem-solving
process has been attained, even if the customer does not explicitly make
this a requirement (see 4.4 Deadlines in the reject handling process).

47
5 Additional applications for the
complaint handling process
In the following applications, as a general rule, the complaint process flow
corresponds to the standard procedure.

5.1 Software complaints

The procedure for a software complaint is similar to what we've described
thus far. In case of SW complaints, to allow for the symptoms to be
reproduced, the customer needs to communicate all the necessary
boundary conditions for the purpose of better and more detailed analysis. If
applicable, separate approval procedures must be followed after changes. If
agreed, changes should be validated by using the VDA volume Automotive
SPICE. For the purpose of complaint handling, software can be broken down
into different categories:

• Software, that is an essential part of the actual product

• Products that are not functional without this software.

In the case of a complaint, this software can be assessed along with the
product. The defective function or property of the product and/or system
can be checked and evaluated under the application conditions. In a second
step, testing can be done to determine whether the software or the
hardware is responsible for the malfunction or defect.

If an error is found in a software programme or version, this generally

means that the error can be found in all the products equipped with it. In
simple structures, this can lead to the same deviation in all products. In
more complex structures and when using self-learning algorithms, artificial
intelligence, calibration algorithms or parametrisation, etc., it is often
difficult or impossible to ascertain which products are affected. For this
reason, how the defective software affects a product has to be determined

48
on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, this also makes it more difficult to
verify the defect, since the precise failure conditions are seldom sufficiently
understood.

For this reason, it is recommended that the defective software be tested on

reference hardware with specially adapted testing scenarios.

If the same symptoms arise many times, it may make sense to perform the
kind of tests done in software qualification testing. The VDA volume
Automotive SPICE may be of assistance.
In case of a complaint, these kinds of programmes should be tested on
reference hardware with specially adapted testing scenarios. Here, too, it’s
important to relay the failure description (basic conditions under which the
defect occurred and how the problem was resolved in the
vehicle/application) to the partner as accurately as possible.

Basically, testing must be performed within a defined framework to

determine whether the software contains an error. If this does not work, we
recommend proceeding as described in the VDA publication “Field Failure
Analysis” under NTF (“no trouble found”).

5.2 Logistic complaints

Essentially, what differentiates logistic complaints from product complaints
is that errors occurred in the handling process, and there are no product
defects. Examples include: wrong quantity or delivery times, wrong labelling.
In such cases, the partners generally start off by exchanging information,
and goods are not necessarily always returned.

Handling errors do not always reveal themselves immediately upon the

receipt of goods. Some errors cannot be caught until the products are
utilised, such as incorrect goods in the packaging.

49
5.3 Service complaints
In the case of one-time services, it is not always possible to determine the
cause. There is no way to rectify the fault.

Oftentimes, the customer merely requests a statement (see process timeline

and deadlines).

It is not always necessary or productive to define basic preventive measures

in these one-off cases.

The customer-supplier relationship should include an agreement on the

exclusion or inclusion of a penalty.

In this case, development services are not part of the standardized process
for handling customers’ complaints and are governed by separate
acceptance procedures.

5.4 Spare parts complaints after EOP

(end of production)
The standardized process for handling customers’ complaints is also
applicable in this case. However, it is recommended that the customer and
supplier agree on the contact persons and who is responsible for what
before EOP.

“Spare parts after EOP” refers to products delivered as spare parts after
series production itself. These are parts that are sent to the shops from the
OEM or original manufacturer (aftermarket – original parts, no component
parts). These products are not subject to the same requirements as series
production parts.

In many cases, the production of spare parts according to EOP can only
take place irregularly. A verification of named measures can therefore cause
longer processing times.

In the defect rectification process, the actions and times must be considered

50
and selected with due consideration of the quantity still to be delivered (“all-
time requirements”).

Another factor to consider is that the spare parts to be delivered “after EOP”
are products that have already been subject to corrective actions for known
issues. If applicable, these actions can be designated as corrective actions
in the complaint. These restrictions only apply to parts after EOP.

Oftentimes, the customer merely requests a statement, see Chapter 4.3

Shortened time limits in urgent cases .

5.5 Complaints before SOP (start of production)

In the case of complaints before SOP (Start of Production), a distinction
must be made as to whether the affected part has already been released or
not. For already released parts, the standardized complaint process should
always be used in the same way as for later series production. For parts that
have not been released, the development process has not yet been formally
completed. In this case, the specific procedure for handling complaints must
be agreed separately between customer and supplier respectively agreed
whether the standardized complaint process should still be used in this
case.

5.6 Complaints over security modules

The application purpose of electronic safety modules is to provide
hardware-based security and protect user data from various kinds of
attacks as well as prevent unauthorized access.

To achieve this security functionality, various protective mechanisms are

installed. These are also enabled in modules sent back to the manufacturer
for analysis in case of a failure.

These software- and/or hardware-based protective mechanisms are

generally impossible to switch off, since otherwise they could be abused by

51
attackers. An example is the keyless vehicle access: A claimed electronic
immobilizer system or its control unit cannot be analysed without the
associated remote control key.

So they make it difficult for the manufacturer to apply various methods of

fault analysis. In some cases, this leads to longer analysis times. It can even
be practically impossible to determine the precise location of a physical
defect.

Customer and supplier should also consider these limitations early on with
regard to the handling of complaints.

5.7 Complaints over EOS (electrical overstress)

cases
The Standardized process for handling customers’ complaints can be
applied in this case, too. However, a root cause is difficult to verify in the
case of an EOS. If “electrically-induced physical damage“ (EIPD) is
established, a clearly defined procedure can be found in the VDA
publication EOS.

5.8 Complaints over parts specified by

customer (“directed source”)
The standardized process for handling customers’ complaints is also
applicable in this case. However, it is recommended that the customer,
supplier and requisitioner contractually define the contact persons and who
is responsible for what.

52
5.9 Complaints over standard parts
Unless a different agreement exists, for standard parts, we recommend
applying the Standardized process for handling customers’ complaints.

It has become established in practice to omit the Standardized process for

handling customers’ complaints if the reject rates in production are
acceptable. These rates must be contractually defined.

5.10 Complaints over free-issue items

The standardized process for handling customers’ complaints is also
applicable in this case. However, it is recommended that the customer,
supplier and requisitioner contractually define the contact persons and who
is responsible for what.

This agreement should also include a provision for warranty claims, for
instance.

5.11 Complaint without part

No part is required if the reason for the complaint be verified by means of
appropriate media (photos, text, video, ...). However, if a product is required
for cause analysis, the parties involved must agree on what seems
reasonable.

If a part is absolutely necessary for the analysis of the complaint from the
perspective of both parties, but it is not available, the supplier can reject the
complaint due to the lack of analysis options.

53
5.12 System failure despite components
conforming with specifications
A system failure is when the customer had initiated reject handling
processes for at least two components from different suppliers, and no
faults were found in either case. In other words, system failures are
occurring, even though the different components within the composite
system comply with their component specifications. It is still advisable that
the reason for the complaint be verified by means of appropriate media
(photos, text, video, ...). However, if a product is required for cause analysis,
the parties involved must agree on how to proceed further.

The customer is responsible for coordinating the necessary investigations

into the composite system, the cause investigation and the definition of
appropriate actions. The suppliers will assist the customer during the
necessary investigations.

If possible, and assuming that all parties agree, these investigations should
also be conducted in conjunction with joint discussions/meetings.
Assistance in systematic root cause analysis is offered explicitly with the
VDA volume Field Failure Analysis and the "NTF process" contained therein.
In particular, this involves the provision of specific relevant information and
data on both sides.

One or more system improvement measures are defined after prior

consultation and agreement with the supplier by the customer.

54
Glossary
Aftermarket

Parts or components that are not sourced or approved by the OEM,

although they may be made to original product specifications. .......... 54

Batch

Production lot, completed quantity of uniform parts, e.g. from one day of
production, between two tool changes, etc........................................ 40

Cascading

complex supplier-customer relations, characterized in a way that a

supplier’s product requires a preliminary product from a sub-
supplier who in turn may likewise rely on sub-suppliers............. 21

Effectiveness

Number of failures following implementation of measures as compared to

original failure frequency .................................................................. 23

EoL test

End-of-line test describes a generally electronic test of the product after

assembly, before delivery. Under certain circumstances, only the
individual scope of construction is checked, but the functioning of the
delivered subassemblies (‘black boxes’ is required ............................ 50

Field complaints

Complaints that only become visible when the end customer uses the
product. ............................................................................................. 7

Findings report

Report from the supplier summarizing the failure description as well as

55
 the ascertained causes and corrective actions .................................. 39

Immediate actions

Immediate actions are actions which do not require any extensive

planning, can be implemented at once and provide damage control.
Some common immediate actions are locking the affected batch and, if
applicable, the products equipped by it, discontinuing use of the faulty
part, notifying other users of the parts. .............................................. 20

IS/IS NOT analysis

Method for limiting the occurrence and causes of failures. This involves
conducting a systematic investigation and compiling a table of
circumstances under which the failure occurs and circumstances
under which it does not occur. Oftentimes, such an investigation allows
us to draw additional conclusions, even before any further testing is
required. .......................................................................................... 17

NOK

Not OK ................................................................................................ 50

Non-detection

A production operation should be fault-tolerant, if possible. This means

that the process is capable of detecting a defective part and preventing
it from being delivered. If a defective product nonetheless does make it
to the customer, the supplier’s process has failed on two accounts ... 25

NTF

’no trouble found’ – the part or the assembly behaves normally during the
test and according to the specification. This can indicate that the error
only occurs under certain environmental conditions not covered in the
test or in connection with neighbouring systems. .............................. 53

OEM

"Original Equipment Manufacturer" - typically an automotive

56
 manufacturer, in this context............................................................. 39

OK

Free of defects ..................................................................................... 40

Poka Yoke

Japanese, such as ‘avoiding unfortunate mistakes’. Poka Yoke means

here, with usually simple technical measures practically exclude errors.
Examples of Poka Yoke can be found in plug-in connections, where the
plug only fits into the socket provided, or on smoke detectors that
cannot be installed without the battery inserted ................................ 27

Problem-solving process

Standardized procedure for identifying the causes of a problem and

eliminating them in a controlled manner. One well-known method is
“Problem-solving in 8 disciplines”, but other approaches are also
possible. ........................................................................................... 15

QDX

VDA standard, describes procedures and electronic data exchange

formats for different areas of cooperation between business partners.
See also VDA volume exchange of quality data / QDX ......................... 4

QMC

"Quality Management Centre" in VDA..................................................... 9

Reference parts

Parts which correspond to the latest approved development status and

have been comprehensively tested/measured. These parts are used as
a reference against which subsequent series production parts are
evaluated. Reference parts can be in the custody of the supplier or the
customer. ......................................................................................... 20

Rejection

57
 Formal notice from the customer to the supplier that their product does
not meet all the requirements. .......................................................... 39

Self-learning algorithms

Programmes capable of interpreting the effects of their actions and

automatically optimise them for future decisions. .............................. 52

Tier-n

Tier-1 is a supplier, tier-2 is a sub-supplier of tier-1, tier-3 is a sub-

supplier of tier-2 and so on. .............................................................. 39

Voluntary disclosure

Indication to the customer by a supplier that a component may be

potentially defective before the customer notices and initiates a reject
handling process. As a general rule, customers tend to be more
accommodating when the supplier discloses a defect voluntarily.
Disclosure can also be mandatory. ...................................................... 9

58
List of figures
Figure 1: How Standardized Process for Handling Customers’ Complaints
ties in with other VDA publications on related subjects ............................ 10
Figure 2: Overview of the standardized process for handling customers’
complaints, including the associated roles ..................................................... 14
Figure 3: Role description in the Standardized Process for Handling
Customers’ Complaints........................................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“Clarification and analysis of a symptom and preliminary attribution of a
cause” ........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“clarification and analysis of the complaint” .................................................. 21
Figure 6: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“immediate actions (supplier)” ............................................................................ 23
Figure 7: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“problem and cause analysis” .............................................................................. 24
Figure 8: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“Corrective actions and effectiveness check/long-term failure
correction” ................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 9: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“conclusion and evaluation” ................................................................................. 27
Figure 10: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“complaint report” .................................................................................................... 28
Figure 11: Input, activity (event) and output (result) of the process element
“cascading” ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 12: Recommended reporting dates (*) ......................................................... 34
Figure 13: Standardized customer complaint process as it relates to
milestones and lead times ..................................................................................... 42

59
List of tables
Table 1: Explanation of failure description ................................................................ 18

Table 2: Possible opportunities and risks in the reject handling process...... 32

Table 3: Communication matrix .................................................................................... 36

60
Appendix
Appendix A: Suggestion for inspection report

61
Appendix B: Suggestion for complaint report

62
Appendix C: Trigger matrix

63
Quality Management in the Automotive Industry

You can find the current status of the published VDA volumes
on Quality Management in the Automotive Industry (QAI) on the Internet at
http://www.vda-qmc.de.

You can also place direct orders at this homepage.

Reference:

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
10117 Berlin, Behrenstr. 35
Telephone +49 (0) 30 89 78 42-235, Fax +49 (0) 30 89 78 42-605
E-mail: info@vda-qmc.de, Internet: www.vda-qmc.de

64
65