RMAs: Negative Experience or Valuable Opportunity?


Reading time ( words)

Returned product is inevitable if you work in manufacturing. That does not imply that it is easy to address. No matter what the reason for the returned material, it disrupts the normal flow of the quality and manufacturing teams. An inspector must first review the defect and agree that it is indeed a defect. This seems like a simple task and can be if the material doesn’t match a customer specific requirement.

However, if the material must adhere to an industry-wide standard, such as an IPC standard in the circuit industry, it becomes a little more tedious. In most cases the manufacturer will be more familiar with the specification than their customer. Also, they are more likely to keep the latest revision of the requirements in their library. This can cause a situation where the customer has identified a reject that isn’t agreed upon when compared to the standard it was built to. Tedious indeed!

As well, there are other cases that have been witnessed by the author that create a lessthan-easy situation. For instance, if the customer sends back rejected material that wasn’t built by your company. This is typically easy to determine by company markings. Or they send back materials that have obviously been damaged by handling at their own facility. It complicates an already difficult process.

How does it happen?

In the flexible circuit industry (and any other industry, for that matter), there are times when all the material delivered to the customer fails to meet the specifications. This can happen for a number of reasons and typically depends on the final inspection process. Two common final inspection processes used are sampling and 100%. When a product utilizes the 100% inspection process, every part that is shipped to your customer will also have been inspected. A sampling process is intuitively a partial inspection, typically 10-25% of the total, and is used on products that have a long history of zero defects.

To read the full version of this article which originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of Flex007 Magazine, click here.

Share

Print


Suggested Items

I-Connect007 'Just Ask' Q&A Compilation Available Now

04/21/2021 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
Throughout 2020, we asked you to send us your questions for Happy Holden, John Mitchell, Joe Fjelstad, Tara Dunn, and Heidi Barnes. You all had plenty of questions for these industry experts. The following is a handy compilation of your questions and their answers.

Rising Star Award Winner: Radu Diaconescu

04/05/2021 | Radu Diaconescu, Swio.io
Last year’s IPC APEX EXPO, which took place in sunny San Diego, seems to have taken place in a different world. This was a world where talks were held in front of a large crowd, not a monitor, and travelling to the other side of the world wasn’t considered a reckless risk. By February 2020, however, we were starting to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Back then, there were a lot of things that we didn’t know, and more importantly, there were a lot of things that we had no clue that we didn’t know. The concept of “knowing what you don’t know” or figuring out the areas where one lacks knowledge is probably as important as acquiring the knowledge itself.

I-Connect007 Editor’s Choice: Five Must-Reads for the Week

03/12/2021 | Andy Shaughnessy, Design007 Magazine
There was a lot going on in the industry this week, and most of it happened at the virtual IPC APEX EXPO. Sure, it wasn’t the same as being in San Diego, but the show went pretty well, especially for a first-time event. There were a few technical snafus, but the IPC technical staff was responsive and took care of most of the issues right away. As I said a few months ago, how would you like to be in trade show management during a pandemic? So, without further ado, here are my top five stories from the past week.



Copyright © 2021 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.