December 2000
Gus's Garage

I am getting discouraged with Charlie’s Café. They are definitely not customer friendly. It is an ordeal trying to get the waitress to take a breakfast order that is not one of the numbered combo-meals listed on the menu. I am reminded of a funny scene in an early Jack Nicholson film titled Five Easy Pieces where Nicholson portrays a drifter by the name of Dupeau. (See box this page).

I wonder how often our customers feel like Dupeau and have similar encounters with service representatives with a bad attitude, little flexibility, or no initiative. Unfortunately, it occurs too frequently. Regardless of the circumstances, a positive service response to Dupeau’s request should have been automatic and uneventful. This film scene typifies some of the underlying reasons why customer service issues are difficult to eliminate or manage.

Last month we calculated the costs and expenses associated with a comeback and warrantee claim that led to a negative customer survey. This month, Gus has been uncovering some of the root causes for his service delivery breakdown. Not surprisingly, one of the underlying issues discovered by Gus was his attitude towards comebacks and warrantee claims.

In explaining to me his findings, Gus admitted that he has many times questioned the demands of his customers. Furthermore, ever since the building upgrades and renovations were made, creating a larger competitive gap, Gus noted that he has been complaining more and more about how unrealistic his customer’s demands have been.

He also confided that although his displays are always very discreet, Kelly had seemed to pick up on Gus’s actions, and consequently, has considered this type of behavior appropriate.

I considered Gus’s admission a huge step forward. He is beginning to understand the connection between leadership (and operating culture), customer attentiveness, and the ensuing impact all three have on profitability.

He further impressed me with his troubleshooting of the issues surrounding the warrantee claim. Gus first looked at the comeback as four separate problems. He next identified what actions were ‘actually’ performed incorrectly. And finally, he listed what the correct steps should have been. Refer to the Table 1 for Gus’s analysis.
Paint problem

Problems	Actual "Incorrect"	Should Be "Correct"
Late delivery	Insurance Co. reinspector Poor work flow and scheduling	Plan for worst case response time, not best case Specify processing and hand-off times
Missing Parts	Correct ordering Supplier inaccuracy Order QC - correct part verifications	Record complete vehicle information Emphasize repeatedly occurring expectations Verify order early in process
Overlooked damages (Center cap & door noise)	Customer communications Technician initiative & training	Review work order items If damages are not on the work order, but in area, ask supervisor
Managing customer expectations Estimator initiative training	Advise customer of repair affects on non-related damages "Up sell" customer on non-related damages

We then developed a "fix-it plan" so Gus’s Body Shop can begin to improve upon the mistakes that lead to the customer service problems. Review the plans in Table 2.

Should Be "correct"	Fix-it Plan
Plan for worst-case response time	Adapt to individual adjuster's re-inspection requirements Stage vehicle early - Initiate supplements and inspections (if needed) Create uniform and detailed "adjuster supplement packages"
Specify processing and hand-off times	Create a daily work expectation for WIP "heavy hits" Create a 2-step "staging process" for heavy hit techs There is not plenty of time or "one more day" to estimate, order parts, and diagnose heavy hits
Complete vehicle information	Use a file form to document all vehicle information
Emphasize repeatedly occurring exceptions - supplier	Fax digital images and special notes to parts vendor
Early parts verification	Match parts received to work order immediately - for WIP have tech review order on day of receipt
Review all work order items	Tech must check off repair/replace items on work
If damages are not on the work order, but in the area, ask supervisor	Estimator must mark the vehicle to distinguish whether to address non-related items
Advise customer of repair effects on non-related damages	All related and non-related damages require estimates and explanations to customer
Should try to "up-sell" customer	All non-related outer body damages located on adjacent or same damaged body panel requires a sales price to be pitched to the customer. Pitch and estimate price must be documented in the file

Finally, we looked at the warrantee handling process itself. Gus normally has the customer stop by the shop with the car to verify the claims, record a ‘hit list" on a piece of paper, and schedule the customer to drop-off the car (if it is safely drive-able) the following Monday or Tuesday. If the customer is screaming, they will put the customer in a rental car immediately, and try to get to the car ASAP.

For a work-order, they make a photocopy of the hit list and put it on the dash of the car. Gus would then assign the comeback to either the original technician or if minor work, he would have a C-Tech or paint department handle the repairs. There is no warrantee repair order or work order to track costs and manage production or customer care.

Next month we will develop a warrantee handling process, look at staging strategies for preparing the both the repair order and vehicle to maximize vehicle through-put. Also next month we will explore ways to make the best use of Gus’s new CSI program.