ISO 9001 : 2008

Management Review

September 2010

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS SEP 2005 - AUG 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sep-0

5

Dec-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-0

6

Dec-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-0

7

Dec-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-0

8

Dec-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-0

9

Dec-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

No of Complaints

Moving Average over 12Months

NON - CHARGEABLE REPAIR VISITS2005 -2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aug

-05

Oct

-05

Dec

-05

Feb

-06

Apr

-06

Jun-

06

Aug

-06

Oct

-06

Dec

-06

Feb

-07

Apr

-07

Jun-

07

Aug

-07

Oct

-07

Dec

-07

Feb

-08

Apr

-08

Jun-

08

Aug

-08

Oct

-08

Dec

-08

Feb

-09

Apr

-09

Jun-

09

Aug

-09

Oct

-09

Dec

-09

Feb

-10

Apr

-10

Jun-

10

NO

OF

RE

QU

ES

TS

All Customers

Moving Average Trend Over 12 Months

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS SEP 2009 TO AUG 2010 (TOTAL134)

FUNCTION (47)

MISSING ITEMS (40)

HANDLING (16)

LIGHTING (8)

DELIVERY (6)

APPEARANCE (6)

ELECTRICAL (4)

INSTALLERS (4)

NO COMPLAINT (2)

PACK (1)

SERVICE REQUESTS AUG 2009 TO JUL 2010 (TOTAL 226 VISITS)

MISSING/ INCORRECT ITEM

(42)

LIGHTING (35)

FUNCTION (32)ELECTRICAL (17)

HANDLING

NO FAULT FOUND

POOR INSTALL

CLOCK

UNIT ALTERATION

SURVEY/ PHOTO

SHUTTER

BRANDING

BASE CABINET

SUPPLY PARTS

SLATWALL

APPEARANCE

Major Complaints & Site Visits 2009-2010

• Complaints

• Label M Glass Shelf Fit

• Barclays Displays Fragility

• Revlon Ferrari Israel - Gov Electrics Assessment

• Coop Counters – appearance and Installations

• Escada Appearance/ Image

• ITL Clocks

• Site Visits

• ITL Unit coming off wall

• 2 Spirits units collapsing

• Incorrect Coop unit installed

Scrap & Rework (Quality Related) 2005 -2010

012345

6789

10

Au

g-0

5

No

v-0

5

Fe

b-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Au

g-0

6

No

v-0

6

Fe

b-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Au

g-0

7

No

v-0

7

Fe

b-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Au

g-0

8

No

v-0

8

Fe

b-0

9

Ma

y-0

9

Au

g-0

9

No

v-0

9

Fe

b-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Month

% S

cra

p &

Re

wo

rk

% Rejects (All Depts)

12 per. Mov. Avg. (% Rejects (AllDepts))

NO OF REJECT NOTES BY AREA SEP 2009 TO AUG 2010

(606 RAISED)

SUPPLIER (162)

HANDLING (81)

TECHNICAL (76)WOOD (69)

ASSEMBLY (53)

METAL (50)

MOULDING (26)

SCREEN (24)

PLASTIC LASER (24)

POWDERCOAT (18)

OTHERS (23)

QTY PARTS REJECTED SEP 2009 TO AUG 2010 BY AREA

(TOTAL 88,535 PARTS)

SUPPLIER (45496)

TECHNICAL (18808)

MOULDING (6400)

ASSEMBLY (3628)

WOOD (2814)

SCREEN (2519)

METAL (1924)

HANDLING (1694)

PLASTIC LASER (1493)

OTHERS (3759)

SUPPLIER DEFECTS BY TYPE SEP 2009 TO AUG 2010 (TOTAL 45496 ITEMS)

PRINTS (20476)

HARDWARE (10001)

EXTRUSIONS (4626)

PLASTIC SHEET (2658)

GLASS (2108)

METAL (1841)

SUBCON

ELECTRICALS

TIMBER

PAINT

MISC

PACK

SUPPLIER DEFECTS SEP 2009 TO AUG 2010 (TOTAL 45496 PARTS)

SHOWCARD (7691 PRINTS)

ANIXTER (7000 H/WARE)

SERVICE GRAPHICS (4800 PRINTS)

JAMES TOWNSEND (4390 PRINTS)

CONDALE (EXTRUSIONS)

WYNDHAM (GLASS)

PERSPEX DISTRIB (PLASTICS)

VGL (PRINTS)

ALEXANDER (H/WARE)

QEF (H/WARE)

OTHERS

Corrective and Preventive Actions

• Mike Morgan Monthly Corrective Action Meetings• Specific Corrective Actions (eg Revlon Israel Spec)

• No process capability studies being undertaken

• The nature of the operation limits a “zero defects” approach• Limited individual knowledge (eg electrics, fire resistance)• Expertise in “solving” problems, perhaps not so strong on

“avoiding” problems.• How to progress (eg reducing print losses, or missing/

incorrect parts, marginal fits).

External and Internal Audits• 8. General Observations and Opportunities for Improvement

(External Assessor)

• 1. Clarify the method of monitoring customer satisfaction and amend the procedure as appropriate. Failure to address this issue may result in a nonconformity at the next visit.

• 2. Update the list of approved suppliers in the designated time frame. Also the company may benefit from including the suppliers of tooling in the list of the approved suppliers.

• The company has implemented various improvement plans. Well done to the team.

ISO 9001 : 2008 (Exact Wording) 8.2.1 Customer Satisfaction

• As one of the measurements of the performance of the quality management system, the organization shall monitor information relating to customer perception as to whether the organization has met customer requirements. The methods for obtaining and using this information shall be determined.

• NOTE Monitoring customer perception can include obtaining input from sources such as customer satisfaction surveys, customer data on delivered product quality, user opinion surveys, lost business analysis, compliments, warranty claims and dealer reports.

Previous Management Review Actions

• Customer Feedback process

• Electrical Training

• Management Review Meetings Frequency

• ISO 14001 Environmental Standard

• Approved Suppliers List

• Revlon Ferrari

• Update Company Structure

Continuing Accreditation – is the ISO relevant to the Business/

Customer Needs?

Changes and Recommendations

Any Other Business