Continue reading with these related posts
Master the critical transition from validated design to volume production with proven strategies for pilot runs, bottleneck elimination, operator training, and quality control systems.
Master the first article inspection process to catch manufacturing issues before they become expensive production problems. Learn when to iterate and when to accept and monitor.
Master the art of fixture design to achieve consistent quality, reduce cycle times, and justify tooling investments that pay for themselves in production.
Your product launched successfully. Production is stable. Customers are receiving shipments. You're celebrating... and then the phone rings. A customer reports that one of your products failed in the field. Then another call. And another.
This is the moment that separates good companies from great ones. How you respond to field issues determines whether customers become advocates or adversaries, whether your product improves or stagnates, and whether your company profits or drowns in warranty costs.
After 17 years managing products in aerospace, automotive, and industrial equipment—industries where field failures can range from expensive nuisances to catastrophic safety issues—I've learned that post-launch support isn't about preventing all failures (impossible) or defending your design (counterproductive). It's about systematic learning and rapid response that builds customer trust while continuously improving product reliability.
The best companies don't have zero field issues. They have robust systems for detecting, analyzing, resolving, and learning from every issue that occurs. This article walks you through building that system.
Product launch isn't the finish line—it's the starting line for the next phase. Your product enters the real world where customers use it in ways you never imagined, environments you didn't fully anticipate, and conditions you couldn't completely test for.
Usage variations: Customers use products differently than expected. That assembly you designed for 100,000 cycles? Some customers run 500,000 cycles. That environmental rating of 0-40°C? Customers install it in locations that hit 55°C.
Manufacturing variations: Even with excellent quality systems, parts vary within specification limits. Sometimes those variations combine in unlucky ways that weren't caught during testing.
Component variations: Supplier changes materials slightly. A key component's properties drift over time. Substitutions get made without full validation.
Time reveals failure modes: Wear, fatigue, corrosion, and degradation mechanisms that take months or years to manifest weren't visible during weeks of testing.
Edge cases exist: Rare combinations of conditions—temperature + vibration + chemical exposure—occur in the field that you didn't test.
Direct warranty costs: Parts, labor, shipping to repair or replace failed products. We've seen companies spend $50,000-$500,000+ on warranty for products that should have been profitable.
Indirect costs: Engineering time investigating failures, production disruptions for change implementation, inventory obsolescence, customer service overhead.
Reputation damage: Bad reviews, lost future business, requirements for price concessions, damage to brand.
Liability exposure: In safety-critical applications, field failures can lead to injury, lawsuits, and regulatory action.
Lost improvement opportunities: Without systematic field data collection, you miss chances to make products better.
Rapid response: Field issues are acknowledged within 24 hours, with preliminary assessment within 48-72 hours.
Root cause focus: Don't just fix symptoms—understand and eliminate root causes so problems don't recur.
Systematic documentation: Every field issue is tracked, analyzed, and resolved with lessons learned captured.
Customer communication: Keep customers informed throughout investigation and resolution, even if you don't have all answers yet.
Continuous improvement: Field data drives product improvements, not just fixes for current issues but design improvements for future products.
Controlled changes: Engineering changes are evaluated for impact, tested before implementation, and documented thoroughly.
Warranty cost management: Track warranty costs by failure mode to prioritize improvements with best ROI.
You can't fix problems you don't know about. The first step is creating systematic channels for customers to report issues and for you to proactively collect feedback.
Customer support hotline/email:
Field service reports:
Warranty claims:
Technical support tickets:
Post-installation surveys:
30 days after installation:
- Did installation go smoothly? (1-5 rating)
- Is performance meeting expectations? (1-5 rating)
- Any issues or concerns?
- Would you recommend to others? (NPS score)
Periodic check-ins:
Customer advisory boards:
Field visits:
Raw feedback isn't useful until it's categorized and prioritized:
Failure report template:
FIELD FAILURE REPORT
Report #: FF-2024-0047
Date received: 2024-02-15
Reporter: John Smith, ABC Manufacturing
Product: Assembly PN-1234, Serial #5478
Installation date: 2023-09-12 (5 months in service)
FAILURE DESCRIPTION:
Product stopped operating during normal production.
No warning signs, sudden stoppage.
Customer estimates 150,000 cycles completed (spec: 100,000 minimum).
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
Temperature: ~30°C
Humidity: Normal
Vibration: Moderate (packaging line environment)
Usage: 16 hours/day, 6 days/week
Maintenance: Monthly lubrication per manual
CUSTOMER IMPACT:
Production downtime: 4 hours
Business impact: High (packaging line stopped)
Customer mood: Frustrated but willing to work with us
IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN:
- Sent replacement unit overnight (arrived next morning)
- Failed unit returned for analysis
- Customer back in operation
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT:
Visual inspection shows bearing seizure.
Potential causes: inadequate lubrication, contamination, or bearing defect.
Full RCA in progress.
PRIORITY: HIGH (multiple units in field, safety not implicated)
ASSIGNED TO: J. Lehman
TARGET CLOSE DATE: 2024-03-01
Not all feedback requires immediate action. Prioritize based on:
| Impact | Frequency | Priority | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | Any | CRITICAL | Immediate investigation, possible recall |
| High impact | Multiple reports | HIGH | Root cause analysis within 1 week |
| High impact | Single report | MEDIUM | Monitor for trends, investigate if repeats |
| Low impact | Multiple reports | MEDIUM | Plan improvement for next revision |
| Low impact | Single report | LOW | Document, address if resource available |
Safety issues always get highest priority regardless of frequency. A single safety failure warrants immediate investigation.
Response time: Time from customer report to acknowledgment
Time to resolution: Time from report to issue closed
Net Promoter Score (NPS):
"On a scale of 0-10, how likely are you to recommend our product?"
9-10: Promoters
7-8: Passives
0-6: Detractors
NPS = % Promoters - % Detractors
NPS interpretation:
Track NPS over time and correlate with field issues to measure if your support efforts are working.
Warranty claim rate:
Warranty rate = (Units claimed / Units shipped) × 100%
Target varies by industry:
- Aerospace: <1%
- Automotive: 1-3%
- Industrial: 2-5%
- Consumer: 3-10%
Rising warranty rate signals reliability problems.
When failures occur, quick fixes are tempting but rarely effective. Root cause analysis (RCA) is essential to prevent recurrence.
Symptom: What the customer observed
"Product stopped working"
Immediate cause: What physically failed
"Bearing seized"
Root cause: Why it failed
"Bearing inadequately lubricated due to seal allowing grease to leak out"
Systemic cause: Why the root cause wasn't prevented
"Seal design not validated for temperature extremes.
Testing protocol didn't include thermal cycling with lubricant analysis."
You must get to systemic causes to prevent similar problems in different products.
Ask "why" repeatedly to drill down from symptom to root cause:
Example:
Problem: Product stopped working
Why? Bearing seized
Why? Bearing ran out of lubrication
Why? Seal leaked, allowing grease to escape
Why? Seal material degraded in high temperature
Why? Seal material not specified for operating temperature range. Design assumed 0-40°C, actual field conditions reached 55°C.
Root cause: Seal material selection inadequate for actual operating conditions.
Systemic cause: Requirements didn't account for installation environment variations. No thermal testing at temperature extremes.
Step 1: Secure failed parts
Step 2: Visual inspection
Step 3: Functional testing
Step 4: Dimensional inspection
Step 5: Material analysis (if needed)
Step 6: Comparison to design intent
Fishbone diagram (Ishikawa):
Organize potential causes by category:
┌─ Material defect
├─ Material degradation
Materials ─────┤
└─ Wrong material
┌─ Design inadequate
├─ Tolerance too tight
Design ────────┤
└─ Insufficient testing
┌─ Manufacturing defect
├─ Assembly error
Process ───────┤ → BEARING SEIZURE
└─ Inadequate lubrication
┌─ Operating outside spec
├─ Poor maintenance
Environment ───┤
└─ Contamination
┌─ Misuse
├─ Inadequate training
Human ─────────┤
└─ Documentation unclear
This helps systematically consider all potential causes.
Fault tree analysis (FTA):
Work backward from failure to identify contributing factors:
Bearing Seizure
|
┌─────────┴─────────┐
| |
No Lubrication Bearing Overload
| |
┌───────┴───────┐ |
| | |
Seal Leak Grease Degraded Excessive Load
Map logical relationships between causes.
RCA report structure:
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS REPORT
Failure Report #: FF-2024-0047
Product: Assembly PN-1234
Date: 2024-02-20
Investigator: J. Lehman
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Bearing seizure after ~150,000 cycles in field installation.
Customer impact: Production downtime.
TIMELINE:
- Installation: 2023-09-12
- Failure: 2024-02-15 (5 months operation)
- Estimated cycles: 150,000 (within expected life)
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS:
Visual Inspection:
- Bearing completely dry, no grease present
- Seal shows heat damage (discoloration, hardening)
- No external damage or misassembly
Dimensional Check:
- All dimensions within specification
- Bearing not worn beyond limits
Environmental Data:
- Customer location: Phoenix, AZ
- Installation: Outdoor equipment enclosure
- Summer temperatures estimated 55-60°C
Material Analysis:
- Seal material: Nitrile rubber (rated to 100°C)
- However, seal hardness increased significantly
- Grease analysis: thermal breakdown evident
5 WHYS:
1. Why did bearing seize? → No lubrication
2. Why no lubrication? → Seal leaked
3. Why did seal leak? → Seal degraded
4. Why did seal degrade? → High temperature exposure
5. Why was temperature higher than expected? → Installation environment not considered in design
ROOT CAUSE:
Seal material inadequate for high-temperature installations.
Design assumed 0-40°C operating range, but outdoor installations in hot climates exceed this.
SYSTEMIC CAUSE:
Requirements specification didn't account for installation environment variations.
Validation testing conducted at room temperature only.
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
- Sales team not trained to ask about installation environment
- Installation manual doesn't specify temperature limits
- No thermal testing protocol beyond room temperature
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
Immediate (prevent recurrence):
1. [Completed] Contacted all customers to identify hot climate installations
2. [In progress] Offering proactive replacement with upgraded seals for hot climate units
3. [Completed] Updated installation manual with temperature limits and warnings
Short-term (fix current design):
4. [Week 1] Source high-temperature seal material (Viton, rated to 200°C)
5. [Week 2] Validate new seal in thermal cycling test (0-70°C)
6. [Week 3] Implement as ECO-2024-012
7. [Week 4] Update product specifications and datasheet
Long-term (prevent similar issues):
8. [Month 1] Revise requirements template to include installation environment questions
9. [Month 1] Develop thermal validation test protocol for all products
10. [Month 2] Train sales team on environmental considerations
COST IMPACT:
- Investigation: 12 hours engineering time (~$1,500)
- Failed units in field: Estimated 8 units (Arizona/Texas installations)
- Replacement cost: 8 units × $250 = $2,000
- Upgraded seal material: +$3.50/unit ongoing cost
- Testing protocol development: $5,000
Total immediate cost: ~$8,500
Annual ongoing cost increase: ~$7,000 (2,000 units/year × $3.50)
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. Always ask about installation environment during sales process
2. Test products at extremes of expected use, not just nominal conditions
3. Consider geographic/climate variations for industrial products
VERIFICATION:
- 10 units with upgraded seals installed in hot climate locations
- Monitored monthly for 6 months
- No failures observed
- RCA verified effective
RCA APPROVED:
Engineering Manager: _______________ Date: _______
Quality Manager: _______________ Date: _______
For significant field issues, especially in automotive and aerospace, the 8D (Eight Disciplines) method provides a rigorous problem-solving framework.
Before starting 8D:
Team composition:
Team roles:
Use 5W2H to fully describe the problem:
Example:
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (5W2H)
What: Bearing seizures causing product failure
Where: Customer installations in hot climates (Arizona, Texas, Southern California)
When: First observed February 2024, failures occurring after 3-6 months operation
Who: 8 customers reported failures (out of ~200 total installations)
Why: Causes production downtime, warranty costs, customer dissatisfaction
How: Detected by customer during normal operation (sudden stoppage)
How many: 8 confirmed failures, ~40 units in similar environments at risk
Goal: Stop the bleeding while root cause investigation continues
Immediate actions:
Example containment:
INTERIM CONTAINMENT ACTIONS
1. [Completed 2024-02-16] Identified 42 units in hot climate installations
2. [Completed 2024-02-17] Contacted all affected customers
3. [Completed 2024-02-18] Shipped replacement units to 8 customers with failures
4. [In progress] Offering proactive replacement to 34 at-risk customers
5. [Completed 2024-02-19] Placed hold on 15 units in inventory destined for hot climates
6. [Completed 2024-02-20] Added installation location questionnaire to sales process
Effectiveness: No additional failures reported since containment actions implemented.
Use RCA tools:
Verify root cause:
Example:
ROOT CAUSE VERIFICATION TEST
Hypothesis: High temperature degrades seal, causing lubricant loss and bearing seizure
Test Setup:
- 3 assemblies with current seal (nitrile rubber)
- 3 assemblies with proposed seal (Viton)
- Thermal cycling: 8 hours at 60°C, 16 hours at 25°C (simulating hot day/cool night)
- Monitor grease level weekly
Results after 8 weeks (equivalent to 6 months field):
Current seal: Significant grease loss (30-40%), seal hardening observed
Proposed seal: Minimal grease loss (<5%), seal condition good
Conclusion: Root cause verified. High temperature degrades current seal material.
Proposed seal material prevents the failure mechanism.
Develop solutions:
Solution evaluation matrix:
| Solution | Effectiveness | Cost | Time to Implement | Risk | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upgrade seal material | High | Low ($3.50/unit) | 2 weeks | Low | 9/10 |
| Add external cooling | High | High ($125/unit) | 8 weeks | Medium | 5/10 |
| Derate for hot climates | Medium | None | Immediate | Low | 6/10 |
| Relocate bearing | Medium | High (redesign) | 16 weeks | High | 3/10 |
Selected solution: Upgrade seal material (highest score)
Verification:
Implementation plan:
PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Solution: Upgrade to high-temperature seal material (Viton)
Implementation Steps:
1. [Week 1] Engineering change order (ECO-2024-012) created and approved
2. [Week 1] Purchase upgraded seals from supplier (lead time: 2 weeks)
3. [Week 2] Update assembly work instructions
4. [Week 2] Update bill of materials (BOM)
5. [Week 3] Receive seal material, validate with incoming inspection
6. [Week 3] Build 10 validation units
7. [Week 3] First article inspection on validation units
8. [Week 4] Release to production
9. [Week 4] Deplete old seal inventory (use for non-hot-climate installations)
10. [Week 6] Transition complete, all new production uses upgraded seal
Field Units:
- Proactively replace seals in 42 at-risk field units
- Coordinate with customers for scheduled downtime
- Complete replacements within 8 weeks
Documentation:
- Update product datasheet with expanded temperature rating
- Update installation manual with environmental considerations
- Update sales materials to highlight hot climate capability
Systemic improvements to prevent similar problems:
SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS
Process Changes:
1. [Completed] Added environmental questionnaire to sales qualification process
2. [Completed] Revised requirements template to include installation environment
3. [In progress] Developed thermal validation test protocol (0-70°C cycling)
4. [In progress] Updated DFMEA to consider climate variations
Training:
1. [Completed] Sales team training on environmental considerations
2. [Scheduled] Engineering team training on environmental requirements
3. [Scheduled] Validation testing protocol training
Design Standards:
1. [In progress] Establish component selection guidelines for temperature ranges
2. [In progress] Define standard test conditions including climate extremes
3. [Planned] Create design checklist for installation environment considerations
Recognition:
Metrics:
Field issues often require product changes. Uncontrolled changes create chaos—controlled changes improve products while maintaining stability.
Class 1: Critical/Safety
Class 2: Major
Class 3: Minor
Class 4: Administrative
Step 1: Change request initiation
Anyone can submit a change request:
ENGINEERING CHANGE REQUEST (ECR)
ECR Number: ECR-2024-127
Date: 2024-02-20
Submitted by: J. Lehman
Type: □ Critical ☑ Major □ Minor □ Administrative
REASON FOR CHANGE:
Field failures due to seal degradation in high-temperature installations.
8 units failed, estimated 40 additional at-risk units in field.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
Replace nitrile rubber seal (PN-5432) with Viton seal (PN-5433).
No other design changes required.
AFFECTED PARTS/ASSEMBLIES:
- Assembly PN-1234 Rev C
- Subassembly PN-2345 Rev B
JUSTIFICATION:
Current seal rated to 100°C but degrades at 55-60°C in field conditions.
Upgraded seal rated to 200°C, verified through thermal cycling tests.
Prevents bearing lubrication loss and seizure.
ESTIMATED COST IMPACT:
Material cost increase: +$3.50/unit
Investigation and implementation: $8,500 one-time
Annual impact: $7,000 (2,000 units/year)
Warranty cost avoidance: ~$30,000/year
PROPOSED EFFECTIVITY:
New production: Immediate upon approval
Field units: Proactive replacement program for hot-climate installations
ATTACHMENTS:
- Root cause analysis report (FF-2024-0047)
- Thermal test results
- Supplier datasheet for new seal
Step 2: Impact assessment
Engineering evaluates:
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ECR-2024-127: Seal Material Upgrade
Technical: ✓ APPROVED
- Design change minimal (drop-in replacement)
- Performance verified through testing
- No negative impacts identified
Manufacturing: ✓ APPROVED
- No tooling changes required
- Assembly procedure unchanged
- Minor work instruction update needed (new part number)
Quality: ✓ APPROVED
- Seal inspection same as current
- First article inspection on first production units
- No re-qualification required
Supply Chain: ✓ APPROVED
- Supplier: ABC Seals (current supplier, different material)
- Lead time: 2 weeks (same as current)
- MOQ: 500 pieces (6 months supply)
- Cost: +$3.50/unit (acceptable)
Customer: ☑ NOTIFICATION REQUIRED
- Form/fit/function unchanged
- Improved performance (higher temperature rating)
- Recommend notification highlighting improvement
Field Service: ✓ APPROVED
- Service procedures unchanged
- Proactive replacement program for at-risk units
Documentation: ☑ UPDATES REQUIRED
- Assembly drawing (PN-1234)
- BOM updates
- Product datasheet (temperature rating)
- Installation manual
- Service manual
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Implement as ECO-2024-012
Step 3: Approval
Engineering change board (ECB) reviews and approves:
ECB composition:
Approval criteria:
Approval signatures:
ENGINEERING CHANGE ORDER
ECO Number: ECO-2024-012
Related ECR: ECR-2024-127
Class: ☑ Major (field failure correction)
APPROVALS:
Engineering Manager: _____________ Date: _____
Quality Manager: _____________ Date: _____
Manufacturing Manager: _____________ Date: _____
Program Manager: _____________ Date: _____
AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: _____________
Step 4: Implementation
Execute according to plan:
IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
□ Supplier purchase order placed (PN-5433 seals)
□ Manufacturing notified of upcoming change
□ Work instructions updated
□ BOM updated in ERP system
□ Training completed (if needed)
□ First article units built and inspected
□ Quality approval for release
□ Old parts inventory disposition determined
☑ Use for non-hot-climate installations until depleted
□ Scrap immediately
□ Return to supplier
□ Customer notification sent (if required)
□ Field service team notified
□ Documentation updated:
☑ Assembly drawing
☑ BOM
☑ Product datasheet
☑ Installation manual
□ Service manual
□ Effectivity date recorded: Production units starting serial #6001
Step 5: Verification
Confirm change achieved desired result:
Serial number effectivity:
PN-1234 Rev C: Applies to serial numbers 1-6000
PN-1234 Rev D: Applies to serial numbers 6001 and up
(Change: Seal material upgrade per ECO-2024-012)
Date effectivity:
PN-1234 Rev C: Units manufactured before 2024-03-15
PN-1234 Rev D: Units manufactured 2024-03-15 and after
Interchangeability:
For the seal change: Interchangeable (in fact, superior for all applications)
Transitioning to new revision:
Option 1: Immediate cutover (recommended for safety/critical issues)
Option 2: Scheduled cutover (for non-critical changes)
Option 3: Phased transition (for changes with long supplier lead time)
For seal change: Used Option 2 (scheduled cutover) coordinated with supplier material delivery.
Warranty costs directly impact profitability. Systematic warranty management turns costs into improvement opportunities.
Typical warranty terms:
Warranty coverage decisions:
Warranty rate:
Warranty rate = (Warranty claims / Units sold) × 100%
Example:
Units sold (2023): 2,000
Warranty claims (2023): 58
Warranty rate = (58 / 2,000) × 100% = 2.9%
Track by:
Warranty cost per unit:
Warranty cost/unit = Total warranty costs / Units sold
Example:
Total warranty costs (2023): $34,500
Units sold (2023): 2,000
Warranty cost/unit = $34,500 / 2,000 = $17.25/unit
Compare to product price and target margin to assess impact.
Warranty cost by failure mode:
| Failure Mode | Claims | Cost/Claim | Total Cost | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seal failure | 23 | $450 | $10,350 | 30% |
| Bearing wear | 15 | $380 | $5,700 | 17% |
| Wiring defect | 12 | $125 | $1,500 | 4% |
| Switch failure | 8 | $95 | $760 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | $840 | $10,080 | 29% |
Pareto analysis shows seal failure is the highest cost opportunity (30% of total cost from one failure mode).
Strategy 1: Eliminate high-cost failure modes
Focus engineering effort where warranty cost is highest:
Sometimes spending more on better components reduces overall warranty cost.
Strategy 2: Improve failure detection in production
Catching defects before shipping is far cheaper than warranty claims:
Cost to detect defect in production: $5 (scrap part or rework)
Cost of warranty claim: $450 (parts + shipping + labor + overhead)
Ratio: 90:1
Invest in better production testing if it catches even 5% more defects—it pays for itself.
Strategy 3: Improve installation/setup documentation
Many warranty claims result from installation errors, not product defects:
Warranty claims analysis:
- Product defect: 35%
- Installation error: 28%
- Customer misuse: 22%
- Wear/end of life: 15%
Improve installation documentation and training to prevent 28% of claims.
Strategy 4: Extended validation testing
Products that fail early in life often have inadequate validation:
Example ROI:
Cost of ALT program: $25,000
Warranty savings from catching design weakness: $60,000 over product life
ROI: 2.4× return, plus avoided reputation damage
Strategy 5: Warranty data-driven design improvements
Use field data to drive next-generation improvements:
Strategy 6: Supplier quality improvement
Component defects drive warranty costs:
Bearing failures causing 17% of warranty cost
→ Root cause: Supplier quality variability
→ Action: Implement supplier SPC, increase incoming inspection
→ Result: Bearing failure rate reduced 60%
Work with suppliers to improve quality rather than simply rejecting defective parts.
From a business perspective, warranty costs must be accrued:
Warranty reserve calculation:
Expected warranty rate: 2.9%
Expected cost per claim: $600
Units sold in period: 2,000
Warranty reserve = 2,000 × 0.029 × $600 = $34,800
This amount is expensed in the period of sale.
Actual warranty costs are charged against the reserve as they occur.
Reserve must be re-evaluated quarterly based on actual claim rates. Under-reserving creates nasty surprises. Over-reserving ties up cash.
The nightmare scenario: your product has a safety defect requiring recall. How you respond determines whether your company survives.
Safety-critical failures:
Regulatory requirements:
Voluntary vs. mandatory recalls:
Voluntary recalls are better—they demonstrate responsibility and often result in less punitive regulatory action.
Step 1: Immediate assessment (within 24 hours of discovering issue)
Step 2: Notify regulatory agencies (within 24-48 hours)
Step 3: Develop recall strategy
RECALL STRATEGY
Product: [Product name and description]
Defect: [Description of defect and hazard]
Units affected: [Number and identification method]
Recall classification:
□ Class I: Dangerous or defective products that predictably could cause serious health problems or death
☑ Class II: Products that might cause temporary health problems, or pose slight threat of serious nature
□ Class III: Products unlikely to cause adverse health reaction but violate labeling/manufacturing regulations
Proposed remedy:
☑ Repair (free seal replacement by authorized service)
□ Replace (exchange for corrected unit)
□ Refund (return for full refund)
Notification plan:
- Direct mail to all registered owners
- Press release and media notification
- Website recall notice
- Retailer/distributor notification
Timeline:
- Notification letters mailed: Within 5 business days
- Press release issued: Within 7 business days
- Remedy available: Within 10 business days
- Completion target: 90% of units remedied within 6 months
Step 4: Customer notification
Recall notification letter:
[Company Letterhead]
IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL
Dear Valued Customer:
This notice is to inform you of a voluntary safety recall of [Product Name], Serial Numbers 5001-6000, manufactured between September 2023 and February 2024.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
We have determined that a seal component may degrade when exposed to high temperatures (above 50°C / 122°F), potentially causing bearing lubrication loss and product failure. While this does not pose a risk of injury, sudden product failure could cause unexpected production interruptions.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
Contact us immediately at 1-800-XXX-XXXX or recall@company.com to schedule a free seal replacement. Our technicians will replace the affected component at no charge to you.
To determine if your unit is affected, check the serial number located on the product nameplate. If your serial number is between 5001 and 6000, your unit is included in this recall.
HOW LONG WILL THE REPAIR TAKE?
The seal replacement takes approximately 30 minutes and can be performed at your facility during scheduled downtime. We will coordinate with you to minimize disruption.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR THIS INCONVENIENCE
Your safety and satisfaction are our highest priorities. We are taking this action proactively to prevent potential issues and ensure your continued confidence in our products.
If you have any questions, please contact our dedicated recall hotline at 1-800-XXX-XXXX, Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 6 PM EST.
Sincerely,
[Executive Name]
[Title]
[Company Name]
Step 5: Execute remedy program
Step 6: Verify effectiveness
Recalls are expensive but necessary:
RECALL COST ESTIMATE
Units affected: 1,000
Remedy: Free seal replacement by service technician
Direct costs:
- Replacement parts: 1,000 × $25 = $25,000
- Service labor: 1,000 × $150 = $150,000
- Shipping/logistics: $15,000
- Notification costs (printing, postage): $5,000
- Regulatory fees: $2,000
Subtotal direct: $197,000
Indirect costs:
- Engineering investigation: 200 hours × $150 = $30,000
- Project management: 100 hours × $125 = $12,500
- Call center support: 50 hours × $50 = $2,500
- Public relations: $10,000
- Legal review: $15,000
Subtotal indirect: $70,000
Total recall cost: $267,000
Cost per unit: $267,000 / 1,000 = $267/unit
This is why prevention through good design and testing is so valuable.
Design for safety:
Validation testing:
Production screening:
Quality management system:
Field data is gold if you systematically collect, analyze, and apply it to future products.
What to track:
Database structure:
FIELD FAILURE DATABASE
Failure ID: FF-2024-0047
Product: PN-1234
Serial #: 5478
Manufacturing date: 2023-08-15
Installation date: 2023-09-12
Failure date: 2024-02-15
Time in service: 5.1 months
Operating hours: ~2,000 hours
Failure mode: Bearing seizure
Symptom: Sudden stoppage during operation
Root cause: Seal degradation → lubrication loss
Operating conditions:
- Temperature: 30°C ambient (outdoor installation in Arizona)
- Humidity: Low (desert environment)
- Vibration: Moderate (packaging line)
- Duty cycle: 16 hours/day, 6 days/week
- Maintenance: Monthly per manual
Customer impact: High (production line stopped)
Business impact: Lost production time, emergency service call
Resolution:
- Replaced unit immediately
- Proactive seal upgrade to Viton material
- No recurrence after upgrade
Cost:
- Warranty claim: $450
- Investigation: $1,500
- Corrective action (ECO-2024-012): $8,500
- Total: $10,450
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF):
MTBF = Total operating time / Number of failures
Example:
2,000 units in field
Average operating time: 2,500 hours/unit
Total operating time: 5,000,000 hours
Failures observed: 58
MTBF = 5,000,000 / 58 = 86,207 hours
Weibull analysis:
Weibull distribution characterizes failure patterns:
Use field failure ages to calculate Weibull parameters and predict future failure patterns.
Bathtub curve:
Most products follow this failure rate pattern:
Failure Rate
|
| ╱\ ╱
| ╱ \ ╱
|╱ \________________╱
|
+----------------------------> Time
Infant Useful Wear-out
Mortality Life Phase
Field data tells you which phase you're in and when to expect wear-out.
Design improvements for next generation:
Warranty data from Product A drives Product B design:
Product A field data (2 years):
- Seal failures: 30% of warranty claims
- Bearing wear: 17%
- Wire chafing: 12%
Product B design improvements:
- Upgraded seal material (Viton) as standard
- Increased bearing size for longer life
- Improved wire routing and protection
- Estimated warranty reduction: 40%
Component selection refinement:
Track which suppliers/components perform best:
Bearing comparison (field data):
Supplier A: MTBF = 15,000 hours, warranty rate 3.2%
Supplier B: MTBF = 22,000 hours, warranty rate 1.8%
Decision: Standardize on Supplier B for future products
Cost: +$8/unit
Savings: Reduced warranty costs of ~$15,000/year
ROI: Positive within first year
Validation test refinement:
Field failures reveal what testing missed:
Field failure: Wire insulation cracking after 18 months
Validation test: 1000-hour thermal aging test at 70°C
Issue: Test didn't include vibration combined with thermal aging
Real world: Vibration + thermal cycling caused premature cracking
Revised test: 2000-hour combined thermal cycling + vibration test
Result: Catches 90% of field failures during validation
Failure mode library:
Document common failure modes and solutions:
FAILURE MODE: Seal Degradation in High Temperature
Symptoms:
- Gradual loss of lubrication
- Increased friction/noise
- Eventual bearing seizure
Root causes:
- Seal material inadequate for temperature
- Thermal cycling accelerates degradation
- UV exposure (outdoor installations)
Design solutions:
- Specify high-temperature seal materials (Viton, PTFE)
- Add UV-resistant compounds for outdoor use
- Include thermal testing in validation protocol
- Design for seal replaceability
Applicable products:
- PN-1234 (bearing assembly)
- PN-5678 (similar rotating equipment)
- PN-9012 (pumps with dynamic seals)
References:
- ECO-2024-012 (seal upgrade)
- Test Report TR-2024-045 (thermal validation)
- Field Failure FF-2024-0047 (original failure)
Design review checklists:
Convert lessons learned into design review questions:
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST
□ Operating temperature range defined?
- Nominal: ____°C
- Extreme: ____°C
- Installation environment considered? (indoor/outdoor, geographic region)
□ All elastomers and plastics rated for temperature extremes?
- Seals: ___ (material: ___, rating: ___°C)
- Gaskets: ___ (material: ___, rating: ___°C)
- Wire insulation: ___ (material: ___, rating: ___°C)
□ Thermal validation testing planned?
- Protocol reference: ___
- Test duration: ___ hours
- Temperature range: ___°C to ___°C
□ Lessons learned from similar products reviewed?
- Reference: ___
- Actions taken: ___
Post-launch support costs money. The goal is spending appropriately to maximize customer value while controlling costs.
Reactive support (responding to issues):
Proactive support (preventing issues):
Improvement activities:
Example: Proactive bearing replacement program
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Scenario: Offer proactive bearing replacement at 3-year mark to prevent wear-out failures
Costs:
- Bearing kit: $45/unit
- Service labor: $150/unit
- Logistics: $15/unit
Total per unit: $210
Units requiring replacement: 500 units reaching 3 years annually
Total annual cost: 500 × $210 = $105,000
Benefits:
- Prevented warranty claims: 35 failures/year × $450/claim = $15,750
- Prevented production downtime: 35 failures × 4 hours × $500/hour = $70,000
- Customer satisfaction: Improved reliability perception
Total quantified benefit: $85,750
Result: Marginal (cost $105k vs. benefit $86k)
However, customer satisfaction value justifies program
Position as value-added service, not cost center
Example: Extended warranty option
EXTENDED WARRANTY ANALYSIS
Standard warranty: 12 months
Proposed extended warranty: 24 months
Premium price: +$125/unit
Expected additional claims:
- Year 2 failure rate: 1.5% (lower than year 1)
- Expected claims: 2,000 units × 1.5% = 30 claims
- Average claim cost: $450
Total expected cost: 30 × $450 = $13,500
Revenue from extended warranty:
Assume 20% of customers purchase
2,000 units × 20% × $125 = $50,000
Profit: $50,000 - $13,500 = $36,500
Result: Profitable and competitive advantage
Implement extended warranty option
In-house vs. outsourced support:
| Function | In-House | Outsourced | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical support calls | $60k/year | $40k/year | Outsource |
| Field failure analysis | $90k/year | Not available | In-house |
| Engineering changes | $95k/year | $150k project | In-house |
| Installation training | $50k/year | $35k/year | Outsource |
Criteria:
Reduce support costs through customer enablement:
Knowledge base/FAQ:
Customer portal:
Training programs:
Cost impact:
Before self-service:
- Tech support calls: 150/month × $25/call = $3,750/month
- Average handle time: 15 minutes
After self-service implementation:
- Tech support calls: 90/month × $25/call = $2,250/month
- Self-service inquiries: 60/month × $0.50/inquiry = $30/month
Savings: $3,750 - $2,280 = $1,470/month ($17,640/year)
Investment: Knowledge base development $15,000 (one-time)
Payback: 10 months
Plus improved customer satisfaction (instant answers vs. waiting for callback).
Let me walk through a real example from our work with an automotive Tier 2 supplier to illustrate these principles.
Product: Sensor bracket assembly for engine compartment Annual volume: 50,000 units/year Customer: Major automotive OEM Issue discovered: Cracks developing in brackets after 18-24 months in field
Initial impact:
Failed parts analysis:
Operating conditions:
Root cause analysis:
Using 5 Whys:
Systemic cause:
8D process initiated:
D1: Team assembled (design engineer, quality engineer, manufacturing engineer, customer representative)
D2: Problem described using 5W2H
D3: Interim containment:
D4: Root cause identified (sharp edges from inadequate deburring)
D5: Solutions evaluated
| Solution | Effectiveness | Cost | Implementation Time | Selected |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Add deburring operation | Medium | Low | 1 week | ✓ Yes |
| Add radius to hole (design change) | High | Medium | 6 weeks | ✓ Yes |
| Change material (higher fatigue) | High | High | 12 weeks | ✗ No |
| Reduce sensor weight | High | N/A (customer control) | N/A | ✗ No |
Selected approach: Combination of improved deburring (short-term) and design change to add radius (long-term)
D6: Implementation plan
Short-term (Weeks 3-4):
1. [Completed] Updated work instruction with deburring specification
2. [Completed] Trained all operators on deburring requirements
3. [Completed] Added visual deburring inspection to QC checklist
4. [Completed] Implemented 100% inspection until process stable
Result: Warranty claims dropped to zero after implementation
Long-term (Weeks 4-8):
ENGINEERING CHANGE: Add 1.5mm radius to mounting holes
ECO-2024-056: Bracket design improvement
Implementation:
- [Week 4] Design change (add radius to CAD model)
- [Week 4] FEA analysis confirming stress reduction (65% lower stress concentration)
- [Week 5] Fatigue testing (5 samples, 2M cycles) - no failures
- [Week 5] ECO approval
- [Week 6] New tooling (drill → ream → radius tool)
- [Week 6] First article inspection
- [Week 7] Production release
- [Week 8] Full production with improved design
Cost:
- Tooling: $4,500
- Engineering time: $8,000
- Validation testing: $6,500
Total: $19,000 one-time cost
D7: Prevent recurrence
SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS
Design Standards:
1. [Completed] Added fatigue design review checklist
2. [Completed] Updated design guidelines: all holes in fatigue-loaded parts require radius
3. [Completed] Revised FEA procedure to include stress concentration factors
Manufacturing:
1. [Completed] Updated work instruction template to include deburring specifications
2. [Completed] Added deburring inspection to quality plan template
3. [Completed] Trained quality team on stress riser identification
Validation:
1. [Completed] Increased fatigue test cycles from 500k to 2M cycles
2. [Completed] Added thermal cycling during fatigue test (simulate field conditions)
D8: Team recognition
Warranty impact:
Before corrective action:
- Warranty claims: 47 over 6 months (rate increasing)
- Projected annual cost: ~$40,000
After corrective action:
- Warranty claims: 0 over 12 months following implementation
- Actual cost: $19,000 one-time implementation
Savings: $40,000/year - $19,000 one-time = $21,000 net savings year 1
Ongoing savings: $40,000/year
Customer impact:
Return on investment:
Investment: $19,000
First year savings: $21,000
Ongoing annual savings: $40,000
ROI (first year): 111%
3-year NPV: $100,000+
What worked:
What could have been better:
Applied to future products:
| Failure ID | Date | Product | Serial # | Age (months) | Failure Mode | Root Cause | Customer Impact | Cost | Status | Owner |
|------------|------|---------|----------|--------------|--------------|------------|-----------------|------|--------|-------|
| FF-2024-001 | 2024-01-15 | PN-1234 | 4523 | 14.2 | Bearing seizure | Seal degradation | High | $450 | Closed | J.Lehman |
| FF-2024-002 | 2024-01-18 | PN-5678 | 8734 | 8.5 | Wire chafing | Routing error | Medium | $125 | Closed | M.Smith |
8D PROBLEM SOLVING REPORT
Problem #: 8D-2024-012
Product: _______________
Date opened: ___________
Team leader: ___________
D0: PREPARE
□ Problem significant enough for 8D? (safety, multiple occurrences, high cost)
□ Team assembled
□ Data collected
D1: ESTABLISH TEAM
Team members:
- Leader: _______________
- Design: _______________
- Quality: _______________
- Manufacturing: _______________
- Customer rep: _______________
D2: DESCRIBE PROBLEM (5W2H)
What: _______________
Where: _______________
When: _______________
Who: _______________
Why: _______________
How: _______________
How many: _______________
D3: INTERIM CONTAINMENT
Actions taken: _______________
Effectiveness verification: _______________
Date implemented: _______________
D4: ROOT CAUSE
5 Whys:
1. _______________
2. _______________
3. _______________
4. _______________
5. _______________
Root cause: _______________
Verification test: _______________
D5: PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Solution options evaluated: _______________
Selected solution: _______________
Justification: _______________
D6: IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Implementation plan: _______________
Verification of effectiveness: _______________
Date implemented: _______________
D7: PREVENT RECURRENCE
Systemic improvements: _______________
Documentation updates: _______________
Training completed: _______________
D8: CONGRATULATE TEAM
Recognition: _______________
Lessons learned: _______________
Knowledge sharing: _______________
APPROVALS:
Team leader: _______________ Date: _____
Quality manager: _______________ Date: _____
Engineering manager: _______________ Date: _____
ENGINEERING CHANGE REQUEST (ECR)
ECR #: ECR-____-____
Date: ___________
Submitted by: ___________
TYPE:
□ Critical (safety/recall)
□ Major (form/fit/function change)
□ Minor (documentation only)
□ Administrative (part number/supplier change)
REASON FOR CHANGE:
□ Field failure correction
□ Cost reduction
□ Design improvement
□ Supplier obsolescence
□ Customer request
□ Other: ___________
DESCRIPTION:
Current design: _______________
Proposed change: _______________
Justification: _______________
AFFECTED ITEMS:
Part numbers: _______________
Assemblies: _______________
Documentation: _______________
COST IMPACT:
Engineering time: $________
Material cost change: $________/unit
Tooling/equipment: $________
Testing/validation: $________
Total one-time: $________
Annual recurring: $________
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Target date: ___________
Effectivity: □ Immediate □ Next production run □ Serial # _____
Customer notification required: □ Yes □ No
APPROVALS:
Requester: _______________ Date: _____
Engineering: _______________ Date: _____
Quality: _______________ Date: _____
Manufacturing: _______________ Date: _____
Program manager: _______________ Date: _____
| Month | Units Shipped | Warranty Claims | Claim Rate | Avg Cost/Claim | Total Cost | Failure Modes (top 3) |
|-------|--------------|-----------------|------------|----------------|------------|----------------------|
| Jan | 180 | 6 | 3.3% | $425 | $2,550 | Seal (3), Wire (2), Bearing (1) |
| Feb | 165 | 4 | 2.4% | $380 | $1,520 | Seal (2), Switch (1), Other (1) |
| Mar | 195 | 8 | 4.1% | $465 | $3,720 | Seal (4), Wire (2), Bearing (2) |
YTD Summary:
Total shipped: 540
Total claims: 18
Claim rate: 3.3%
Total cost: $7,790
Cost/unit shipped: $14.43
Post-launch support eventually transitions to continuous improvement as products mature and field issues stabilize. The next article in this series covers "Continuous Improvement: Iterating on Existing Products" including:
Indicators that product is mature and ready for continuous improvement phase:
Once these criteria are met, shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive optimization.
Post-launch support determines long-term product success. The keys:
Field issues are inevitable, but how you respond is entirely under your control. Companies that excel at post-launch support turn problems into opportunities—to build customer loyalty, improve products, and establish reputation for standing behind their products.
The product development journey doesn't end at launch. In many ways, it's just beginning.
Ready to learn more about product development? This is article 9 in our "From Sketch to Shop Floor" series. Previous articles covered concept development, requirements engineering, design for manufacturing, prototyping, design validation, tooling, first article inspection, and production ramp-up.
Need help managing field issues or improving product reliability? Blackrock Engineering has extensive experience with root cause analysis, engineering change management, and warranty cost reduction across aerospace, automotive, and industrial equipment. Contact us (opens in new tab) to discuss your challenges.