According to Rickpop, Service Department should be buying and stocking these parts outright and then calls this "putting things is perspective".......but, would that be the parts or service perspective ?
I may be misunderstanding but this doesn't sound like a teamwork situation, since he, by his own admission, is *forcing* service to buy something "just like the factory does". Sheesh ! What a swell guy !!! Yeah, we service guys are so enamored with the factory that we'd love to get the same treatment from our own Parts Department ! NOT !
(I remember from my own Parts Managing days how easy is was to simply "charge something out and wash my hands of the problem." Hey, wish I could go back sometimes !)
Eric the Red is naturally concerned about non-returnable parts. Well, I think we'd all agree that "parts testing" should not include special order parts. It should be allowed with normally stocked, fast moving parts.
In the final analysis, Service Dept should be given a certain degree of latitude....just a you'd give *any* of your "good customers". If things get out of hand....and only then....lower the boom and get tough ! Any realistic Service Manager will understand.
But don't be needlessly hard-nosed about this situation.
Rant over !! Cheers to all,
Doug
Tech Parts Returned
25 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Tech Parts Returned
by john » Tue Jul 10, 2001 12:50 am
As a Ford Auditor and warranty consultant for Ford dealers, I see this issue all the time. The real issue in these gray areas (tech manual or hotline directed parts replacement)is management control. If the service manager/advisor/team lead tech coordinates on the replacement per Ford's direction and initials and approves the part replacement, and if the technician comments support the test sequence requiring the replacement, then the part can be charged to Ford. No auditor would have the guts to claim that as a chargeback in an audit or review in the face of the evidence that the replaced part was in fact part of the diagnosis and repair process.
As far as customer pay goes --- you had better prepare the customer before hand with the potential (especially in drivability repairs) that parts cost could get pretty expensive and quote the worst case price with lower prices that might reflect sucessful early diagnosis. In many cases those customers have already spent a lot of money at the independent shops and they have given up on the problem and sent him to you. Let the customer know he is responsible for the parts installed in response to "replace with a known good part" in the shop manual. Get ready to help him trade in his car after you say that!!!!
As far as customer pay goes --- you had better prepare the customer before hand with the potential (especially in drivability repairs) that parts cost could get pretty expensive and quote the worst case price with lower prices that might reflect sucessful early diagnosis. In many cases those customers have already spent a lot of money at the independent shops and they have given up on the problem and sent him to you. Let the customer know he is responsible for the parts installed in response to "replace with a known good part" in the shop manual. Get ready to help him trade in his car after you say that!!!!
- john
Tech Parts Returned
by Doug » Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:25 pm
Re: the audit aspect of this discussion....
Wish I could say I've gotten the same impression from my GM, Subaru, and Chrylser reps.
Repairs done on instructions from Tech Assist seem to be "OK" with my GM and Chrylser reps (you know, the old shrug-of-the-shoulders routine) but they certainly have *not* left me confident that such repairs are audit proof....even with proper documentation.
Subaru has made it very clear that they expect experimental repairs....done with or without technical assistance advice....to be dealership responsiblity. But, let's not go there tonight.......
Cheers to all,
Doug
Wish I could say I've gotten the same impression from my GM, Subaru, and Chrylser reps.
Repairs done on instructions from Tech Assist seem to be "OK" with my GM and Chrylser reps (you know, the old shrug-of-the-shoulders routine) but they certainly have *not* left me confident that such repairs are audit proof....even with proper documentation.
Subaru has made it very clear that they expect experimental repairs....done with or without technical assistance advice....to be dealership responsiblity. But, let's not go there tonight.......
Cheers to all,
Doug
- Doug
Tech Parts Returned
by warr_wiz » Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:01 pm
I noticed Chuck's reply saying "Obviously we have hit a very sensitive subject here." Well before we roll out the WWF wrestling ring, I want to comment on the reply from Doug. Any direction from Technical assistance or service manuals to "try a known good part" is NOT an authorization. During an audit, by your rep or otherwise, if 2 parts were charged on a repair, not many people will buy into the "well they told me to try it" deal. I know sometimes it seems the manufacturers don't realize what it takes to find some of the problems we see. This is why I think it is so important to work TOGETHER with the parts and service depts. As far as I know, we are all working for the same company and trying to achieve the same basic goals. And as many times as this problem arises, I think I have bigger fish to fry.
- warr_wiz
Tech Parts Returned
by rickpop » Wed Jul 11, 2001 5:20 pm
When it comes to the "Gray area" of the "parts testing" problem, the only logical "perspective" that we should all be concerned with is that of the customer. As a dealer parts operation, we are engaged in the selling of NEW, UNUSED parts, not "previously installed" items. In 26 years in this business, I have only seen a few exceptions to this policy, at new vehicle dealers, and they were not very successful at it.
Yet, what I'm hearing here is that it's OK for the service dept. to return "testing" parts back to the parts department to try to sell it if they can (because you're not going to get the OEM to take it back). What has been suggested is that the parts department needs to subsidize the service departments "cost of doing business", by paying for all (or part) of the cost of what is essentially "tooling" cost (refer to my previous post). This is just "old school" thinking wasn't very smart I understand that even GM has seen fit to begin halting such things as the practice of "Parts Gross profit transfer" to the shop. Nor would I be comfortable with putting the total cost of "Parts testing" on the customer.
Please don't misunderstand, I firmly believe that both departments should participate in the cost of taking care of our mutual customers, in matters of policy (i.e. out of warranty period situations and "repairs gone bad", etc.). However, I have to stop short of helping the shop cover their expense for "tools". Just as I also believe that the shop should not have to help the parts department purchase new cataloging, etc.. Ask yourself, if it were an over-the-counter wholesale repair shop, that purchased the part for testing, would you allow him to return it? Probably not, in most instances.
Lets face it, the reason that we sell parts, to the people we do (often at a higher price than they can purchase it elsewhere), is that they can count on a good, new, unused part. I wouldn't want to risk our dealerships good reputation by trying to sell a previously installed part to one of our customers (be it a service customer or an over-the-counter customer). I would just as soon through it away, instead of risking a loss of a customer. But instead of throwing it away, it makes more sense to keep this part for future testing requirements that may arise. And of course this "tool" should be sold to the shop at a "friendlier" internal rate, not list.
This whole issue of "Test parts" is a complex one. But here are a few points that we should keep in mind.
1. John points out that the service dept. should do their part in preparing the customer for a possible "excess expense" that may be incurred during the diagnosis process. This is reasonable approach.
2. In warranty situations, "where possible" every attempt should be made to recover such "tooling" costs from the manufacturer, by practicing exactly what John also mentions.
3. In customer pay, "test parts" should be treated as tools, and no longer as a part that can be returned to parts. No matter if it were a special order or a stocking part. We must keep in mind that it is the customers' vehicle that we are trying to fix, and if we don't fix his vehicle to his satisfaction, he won't be back.
4. If a problem child (sorry "tech") is identified, where abuse of this practice is found, it should then be handled on a case by case basis.
I believe that we may have gotten off the topic at hand. It appears there are two separate issues. The original post (I understand) was more referring to the problem of what we do when a part is returned back that did not fix the problem. Not necessarily, those parts that are mandated to test for a problem. I would be interested to hear how other are handling the problem of preinstalled, open package, parts that come back because they did not fix the problem. What exactly do we do with them?
Sorry for being so long winded
Yet, what I'm hearing here is that it's OK for the service dept. to return "testing" parts back to the parts department to try to sell it if they can (because you're not going to get the OEM to take it back). What has been suggested is that the parts department needs to subsidize the service departments "cost of doing business", by paying for all (or part) of the cost of what is essentially "tooling" cost (refer to my previous post). This is just "old school" thinking wasn't very smart I understand that even GM has seen fit to begin halting such things as the practice of "Parts Gross profit transfer" to the shop. Nor would I be comfortable with putting the total cost of "Parts testing" on the customer.
Please don't misunderstand, I firmly believe that both departments should participate in the cost of taking care of our mutual customers, in matters of policy (i.e. out of warranty period situations and "repairs gone bad", etc.). However, I have to stop short of helping the shop cover their expense for "tools". Just as I also believe that the shop should not have to help the parts department purchase new cataloging, etc.. Ask yourself, if it were an over-the-counter wholesale repair shop, that purchased the part for testing, would you allow him to return it? Probably not, in most instances.
Lets face it, the reason that we sell parts, to the people we do (often at a higher price than they can purchase it elsewhere), is that they can count on a good, new, unused part. I wouldn't want to risk our dealerships good reputation by trying to sell a previously installed part to one of our customers (be it a service customer or an over-the-counter customer). I would just as soon through it away, instead of risking a loss of a customer. But instead of throwing it away, it makes more sense to keep this part for future testing requirements that may arise. And of course this "tool" should be sold to the shop at a "friendlier" internal rate, not list.
This whole issue of "Test parts" is a complex one. But here are a few points that we should keep in mind.
1. John points out that the service dept. should do their part in preparing the customer for a possible "excess expense" that may be incurred during the diagnosis process. This is reasonable approach.
2. In warranty situations, "where possible" every attempt should be made to recover such "tooling" costs from the manufacturer, by practicing exactly what John also mentions.
3. In customer pay, "test parts" should be treated as tools, and no longer as a part that can be returned to parts. No matter if it were a special order or a stocking part. We must keep in mind that it is the customers' vehicle that we are trying to fix, and if we don't fix his vehicle to his satisfaction, he won't be back.
4. If a problem child (sorry "tech") is identified, where abuse of this practice is found, it should then be handled on a case by case basis.
I believe that we may have gotten off the topic at hand. It appears there are two separate issues. The original post (I understand) was more referring to the problem of what we do when a part is returned back that did not fix the problem. Not necessarily, those parts that are mandated to test for a problem. I would be interested to hear how other are handling the problem of preinstalled, open package, parts that come back because they did not fix the problem. What exactly do we do with them?
Sorry for being so long winded
- rickpop
Tech Parts Returned
by Doug » Wed Jul 11, 2001 10:45 pm
No apology needed, you brought up some good points.
Here's a simple solution (works for me, anyway !)
Any part used for testing goes back on the shelf, marked for "shop use". So, this TPS (for example)would be tagged and the next time the shop needs one for use on a customer's car, the parts guys would use the one which has already been opened by one of the techs. No explaining to an over-the-counter customer why the box was opened.
Problem solved. When the shop needed a test part, they got it. Ultimately, the part *was* sold, so the parts department suffers no loss.
If the tech ruins the parts during testing then the shop obviously pays for it.
Hey, it's just an idea which works for us and, no, the bins are *not* overflowing with "shop use" parts.
All I'm saying is that a little flexibilty goes a long way.
Cheers to all,
Doug
Here's a simple solution (works for me, anyway !)
Any part used for testing goes back on the shelf, marked for "shop use". So, this TPS (for example)would be tagged and the next time the shop needs one for use on a customer's car, the parts guys would use the one which has already been opened by one of the techs. No explaining to an over-the-counter customer why the box was opened.
Problem solved. When the shop needed a test part, they got it. Ultimately, the part *was* sold, so the parts department suffers no loss.
If the tech ruins the parts during testing then the shop obviously pays for it.
Hey, it's just an idea which works for us and, no, the bins are *not* overflowing with "shop use" parts.
All I'm saying is that a little flexibilty goes a long way.
Cheers to all,
Doug
- Doug
Tech Parts Returned
by tjsmith » Wed Jul 11, 2001 11:38 pm
Doug I agree with you...If the part was taken off the shelf, & tested, & the part is brought back, & it has not been damaged in any kind of way..I simply put the part back on my shelf & re-sale it....If you test drive a NEW car, is it still a new car or should it sold as a USED vehicle now???
- tjsmith
Tech Parts Returned
by Rex » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:05 pm
Doug,
What if that TPS is the only one on hand, and your next opportunity to sell is to an independent garage? Will you tell them you don't have it, or explain why the box is torn and the terminals are scratched? What if you sell it to them and they bring it right back and tell you it's bad?
What if that TPS is the only one on hand, and your next opportunity to sell is to an independent garage? Will you tell them you don't have it, or explain why the box is torn and the terminals are scratched? What if you sell it to them and they bring it right back and tell you it's bad?
- Rex
Tech Parts Returned
by rickpop » Thu Jul 12, 2001 6:50 pm
Doug, we are currently also tagging returns from the shop as "Shop use only". However, I must point out two holes we have found in this practice.
First, you say that you don't have to explain to an over-the-counter customer why the box is open. That's assuming that you have another of the same part number in stock to sell to him. But unfortunately, typically 70% of your total stocking inventory has a stocking level of only 1 piece, so the system won't reorder another "clean" part to replace the returned item. You can easily verify these numbers (i.e. 70%) on your own inventory. I'm not sure what system your on, but if you are on ADP, you can try the following English statements;
COUNT PART-NO. WITH SS EQ ""
(This will give the total "stocking" part numbers on your system.)
COUNT PART-NO. WITH SS EQ "" AND WITH BSL EQ "1"
(This will show stocking items that you normally carry only one on hand.)
This makes the chance of you having to "explain" to an over-the-counter customer quite high.
Secondly, How many times have I heard where a tech is reluctant to take a "shop use only" part, because he doesn't want to risk a comeback, because of a "suspect" quality part? A lot more often than I want to.
Tjsmith, I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. A customer assumes that a NEW car will HAVE to be test driven, it's normally part of the shopping and purchase process. I don't think they get the same "warm & fuzzy" feeling knowing that the sensor (or whatever) they're buying was previously "driven".
It's interesting hearing your concepts though, good conversation
[This message has been edited by rickpop (edited 07-12-2001).]
First, you say that you don't have to explain to an over-the-counter customer why the box is open. That's assuming that you have another of the same part number in stock to sell to him. But unfortunately, typically 70% of your total stocking inventory has a stocking level of only 1 piece, so the system won't reorder another "clean" part to replace the returned item. You can easily verify these numbers (i.e. 70%) on your own inventory. I'm not sure what system your on, but if you are on ADP, you can try the following English statements;
COUNT PART-NO. WITH SS EQ ""
(This will give the total "stocking" part numbers on your system.)
COUNT PART-NO. WITH SS EQ "" AND WITH BSL EQ "1"
(This will show stocking items that you normally carry only one on hand.)
This makes the chance of you having to "explain" to an over-the-counter customer quite high.
Secondly, How many times have I heard where a tech is reluctant to take a "shop use only" part, because he doesn't want to risk a comeback, because of a "suspect" quality part? A lot more often than I want to.
Tjsmith, I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. A customer assumes that a NEW car will HAVE to be test driven, it's normally part of the shopping and purchase process. I don't think they get the same "warm & fuzzy" feeling knowing that the sensor (or whatever) they're buying was previously "driven".
It's interesting hearing your concepts though, good conversation
[This message has been edited by rickpop (edited 07-12-2001).]
[This message has been edited by rickpop (edited 07-12-2001).]
- rickpop
Tech Parts Returned
by tjsmith » Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:36 pm
I have noticed most of the time that when a situation comes up and a tech has to come and "barrow a part" and the part is not the problem and it gets put back on the shelf, that my independents come accross the same situation, and I will let them know we ran accross this before and you are more than welcome to try this part,BUT THIS ONLY WITH MY GOOD!!CUSTOMERS!!! not Joe's Shade Tree Service Center, but my point is that same part numbers are always the same old test part numbers for our shop or the ind. shops around town. (not everytime but most of the time) But this is not a perfect world and all situations are different.
And Rex, not to answer for Doug, but in that situation, And I hve ran accross it before, if the part comes back bad I get VIN and Miles, get Serv Mgr open a RO and I take care of it. If I got to pick up the part from another dealer then I do it. But that is a rare situation that has not happened to often.
And Rex, not to answer for Doug, but in that situation, And I hve ran accross it before, if the part comes back bad I get VIN and Miles, get Serv Mgr open a RO and I take care of it. If I got to pick up the part from another dealer then I do it. But that is a rare situation that has not happened to often.
- tjsmith
25 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests