Tech Parts Returned

[Louis]

I'm curious to know what other dealers do in this situation. After diagnosing a problem a tech comes to the parts counter and asks for an ECM for example. We bill it out on a repair order and he proceeds to install it in the vehicle. The ECM doesn't fix the problem so he brings it back and asks for a ignition module, etc. - you all know the scenario.

My question is how dealers out there deal with the problem of returned electrical (or other types of parts as well) from the service dept that have been installed and do not fix the problem. Of course they think we should just repair the box and put it back on the shelf and sell it to the next customer. In some cases these parts are special ordered. And in a lot of cases the box the part was in is nearly destroyed, soaked with oil and grease, torn or otherwise in bad shape.

I realize that in some cases electrical diagnosis is not an easy task, but by letting them "try

[Chuck Hartle]

Louis,

This is, of course, an age old problem. Depending upon how lax the parts department is in letting technicians and service advisors speculate about parts ordered for repair, this can be the number one cause of headaches and idle captial in your inventory.

Typically, the problem is worse depending upon how up to date the service department keeps new diagnostic equipment to test the vehicles for the failed part. If the dealership is slow to purchase new technology to diagnose repairs, the techs have no choice but to troubleshoot the problem with parts until they can fix it!

Technicians that go untrained also can create this problem because they don't know how to use the technology to begin with.

You are practicing the more traditional methods of trying to control it and you might look at talking with the dealer and service manager about the above problems to try and control it. It is usually very obvious, with the high cost of ECM's SMEC's and such, that several failures with these high dollar electronic parts that are now not returnable to the manufacturer because of use would easily add up to the cost of training and purchasing the right equipment to diagnose it properly.

If you have a problem charging this back to the service department and you want to target these type of parts to measure the true effect it is having on your inventory performance, set up a separate source and put only these parts into it. This way you can isolate the true damage and cost it is causing to your inventory.

Chuck Hartle'

[warr_wiz]

At this GM store, the parts manager and myself, (service manager) have an agreement that has worked fine for us. Techs are not allowed to "try" any parts be it an electrical part or not. The only exception is with ECM's. In this case either myself or another tech will get involved just to reaffirm the diagnosis. Then we will explain to the parts department the problem. If the ECM is in stock, and there is no further diagnosis or testing, we are allowed to return the ECM. Of course if it is damaged it will be charged back to service. Each ECM used is marked with tech # and ro # and date. All other parts used in repairs that do not fix the problem are charged to service. The parts manager does give me a good deal often only charging me cost or very little mark up. We certainly don't make a habit of "trying" parts, but it does happen from time to time. No matter how much equipment, training, etc. you have, there is the "occasional" dead end or wrong information in SI2000/service manuals. We do our best to work with each other and around these problems.

[fburrows]

I think Warr_Wiz is right on target. The only thing I would add is that we had a policy of paying the technician who reinstalls the part if there are any problems with the part. Technicians are always hesitant to use anything other than a sealed part and need to be reassured that if there is something wrong with that part that the dealership will cover their time. The parts department needs to help the service department get that part off the shelf. If there are an excessive number of these instances then the causes need to be investigated.

------------------
Frank Burrows
Automotive Business Solutions
frank@autobusiness.org

[Doug]

I would never expect parts department to special order parts for experimentation but if they're on the shelf there's no reason not to let the techs try them. Providing, that is, that it's the type of part that won't come back with hammer marks and gasket cement all over !

It is unfair to assume that "diagnosis by substitution" is necessarily indicative of sub-standard ability or training. Get on the phone to the tech assist help lines and you'd be amazed at how often the suggestion is "replace with known good part."

Sure, proper diagnosis is always best but when the workload is backing up and you've got a problem car......well, sometimes it's just more practical to spend five minutes swapping out that switch or sensor rather than another 2 hours chasing your tail, sorting erroneous service manual info, and performing 30-step test procedures.

The sooner parts department can do their part to help get a problem car out of the shop, the sooner both departments can move on to some of the gravy work.

Let's face it, both departments have much bigger fish to fry than worrying if a tech is gonna "burn up" that $20 power lock switch ! I hate to see production held up due to silly, pedantic adherence to "policy".

Naturally I wouldn't condone this in all instances. I always have the parts guys tell me if one of the techs is getting carried away with this practice or asking for really off-the-wall stuff. I don't like the guys making a habit of of this.

Hey, if one of the techs ruins a "test" part, charge it to the shop and I would never quibble a bit. What's fair is fair. I don't expect parts department to take a loss becuase of tech experimenting.....I just don't expect them to be needlessly hard-nosed about it, either !

Having spent many years wearing both service and parts manager hats, I can see both sides fairly easily.....I think !

Cheers to all,
Doug

[warr_wiz]

Just to add one more thing, I have seen more than once in GM service manuals a step on a diagnostic flow chart actually say "try a known good part." I think it's unfair for the service department alone to take the hit on this. That's why I believe the departments benefitting from all the other sales (parts AND service) should take the occasional hit. It just keeps everyone in the entire picture happy, including customers, manufacturer or not.
Please note the word "occasional." If it gets to be a habit, then that's a new problem.

[This message has been edited by warr_wiz (edited 07-07-2001).]

[Chuck Hartle]

Obviously we have hit a very sensitive subject here. This is one of those issues we could debate over and over again. Let's keep running with it and get some more input from both parts managers, service managers, and fixed operations directors.

Having been a fixed operations director for a large organization, I too have seen the good and the bad. Dealing with many dealerships now, it is very easy to find a dealership where speculative parts ordering is out of control and easy to spot a dealership where it is not.

When a service manager complains that the parts operation is not carrying enough parts to satisfy customer demand (tech demand), the first thing we do is look at the forced stock pushed back into the parts department. We typically find that the average parts operation has 20-25% of their parts "forced" into inventory, never meeting their phase in criteria. In some instances we have seen dealerships with as much as 50% of the entire inventory population forced to inventory.

Unknown to the service department, they will complain about the parts department's inability to carry the right parts, but the service department in "choking" the parts department's ability to carry the right parts because of over ordering habits by the service department.

Best practices will show that when the service department is controlling the speculative ordering the parts operation has a greater chance of carrying the right parts. We will never completely get rid of speculation completely. As Doug mentioned, the service manuals actually encourage testing a part, but when it is controlled it is in the service department's best interest as well as parts. After all, service could not survive without parts, and parts could not survive even more with out service. They go hand in hand and are almost a perfect cinergy when you think about it!

Let's get some more constructive feedback on this issue.....

Chuck Hartle'

[This message has been edited by Chuck Hartle (edited 07-07-2001).]

[Scannh]

In my opinion if TAN tells you to "Replace with a known good part" that part should be sold. You have a case number and you have the proper paper trail the Factory should own the part. But who listens to my opinion?
Lets put another angle on this. If the Serv. Managers that responded to this topic owned their own shop and purchased the part from the dealership would they be as quick to ask the parts department to buy the part back?? And should they get credit?

[rickpop]

Here's an idea for thought...
Let's try to put things into perspective.

Several of you have already pointed out that the Service manual and (or) tech support lines, often require you to "test with a known good part". We have all seen this.

If this is the situation, then this part is no longer a "part", it is now a piece of shop test equipment. Just like any other piece of test equipment that the service department is force to purchase by the manufacturer to properly service the vehicle. Plus, this "Test equipment" can be used over and over again.

Any thoughts?

[This message has been edited by rickpop (edited 07-09-2001).]

[eric the red]

"Known Good Part" can only mean a substituted part from a properly operating vehicle. A new part in the box is only assumed to be a good part.

While it is understandable from the tech's side to try a part, from the parts dept side there is the fact that many parts are now sealed by the factory with tape that states, "If tape is broken, part is not returnable."

When you get into parts of this value, a second opinion can sometimes be valuable. I don't believe that there is anything a service employee can do to help move these sort of parts. They did not meet the requirements for a stocking part, and now they will be as valuable as any other obsolete inventory--worth as much as someone will pay.

These sorts of things may be part of the repair process and the responsibility of the owner.