Read the returns before you read the reviews.

Problem

Reviews were good and returns were expensive, and the two data sets disagreed. Review text talked about noise and looks; nobody who returned a unit wrote a review at all.

Context

A beverage chiller sold through two retailers. Roughly 2,800 units a year, warranty handled by the retailer and reimbursed monthly, which is why the failures were invisible for three quarters.

What they did

1. 1.Asked the retailer for ten physical returns rather than the return reason codes.
2. 2.Opened all ten and found the same door gasket deformed on seven.
3. 3.Traced the gasket to a supplier change made eight months earlier for a 40-cent saving.
4. 4.Reverted the gasket and added an incoming compression check that takes eleven seconds a unit.

What to avoid

• •Return reason codes said customer changed mind on five of the seven gasket failures, because that is the fastest box for a retailer to tick.
• •The warranty cost was reimbursed as a lump sum and never allocated per unit, so the finance view showed a line item rather than a defect.
• •The 40-cent saving had been reported as a win and was still in the cost model.

Sources

• Return teardown notes, ten unitsBrightwell Chillers quality log
• Gasket supplier change recordBrightwell Chillers quality log

Related lessons

• Test the failure you are afraid of, not the one that is easy to test.→
• Qualify the second supplier before you need one.→