[Strategies For Growth℠ (SFG℠) is currently in the process of conducting its 2018 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey Update. The survey will remain “live” until the end of the first week of February; and the topline results will be presented – for the first time – at the 2018 Warranty Chain Management (WCM) Conference to be held, March 6 – 8, 2018, in San Diego, California.
Please feel free to read the key takeaways from our 2017 WCM Benchmark Survey, below. In the meantime, we invite you to take our 2018 WCM Benchmark Survey Update by clicking on the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018_SFG-WCM]
The key takeaways from SFG℠’s 2017 Warranty Chain Management (WCM) Benchmark Survey are:
- Roughly half (49%) of the warranty management community has either implemented a new, or upgraded their existing, warranty management solutions in the past three years or less
- More than three-quarters (77%) of current warranty management processes are at least partially automated; however one-in-six (15%) are still entirely manual
- Organizations with “new” warranty management implementations have realized significantly greater performance improvements than all other categories of respondents with respect to warranty claims processing time and supplier/vendor recovery (as a percent of total warranty expense)
- Warranty management organizations are being driven, first, by Customer-focused factors; second, by Product Quality-focused factors; and third, by Cost/Revenue-focused factors
- The most significant challenges currently faced by warranty services managers are identifying the root causes of product failures, followed by product quality issues and claims processing time and accuracy
- Currently, as well as in the next 12 months, warranty services managers are focusing primarily on developing and/or improving their KPIs and warranty analytics programs, fostering a closer working collaboration between product design and service, and instituting/enforcing process workflow improvements for supplier cost recovery
- The top uses of data/information collected from warranty-related events are basically to improve processes (i.e., field service, depot repair, parts returns, etc.), and effect changes (i.e., product design, manufacturing, etc.)
- Customer satisfaction and warranty management-related costs are the top two categories of KPIs used by warranty services management organizations, followed by warranty costs, per product
- The 2017 warranty management survey results reflect slight to modest declines in year-over-year performance, except for those organizations that have implemented a “new” (to them) warranty management solution in the last three years or less
- While the overall survey results seemingly portray a fairly high level of warranty management performance across all respondent segments, there are many – in fact, too many – individual organizations that are not performing anywhere near as well (i.e., 25% to almost 50% of survey respondent organizations)
Historically, the primary factors cited as driving the warranty management community to improve its operational efficiencies and overall performance have essentially been customer-driven; that is, with a focus primarily on meeting – and exceeding – customer expectations for returns processing, claims processing time, replacement units and the like. However, the economic bust of the past decade changed the way warranty management organizations think by also placing increased emphasis on warranty costs and related issues. Still, the number one factor, overall, is to meet their obligations with respect to keeping their customers satisfied.
The bottom line for 2017 and beyond is that organizations that have implemented new (or at least upgraded) warranty management solutions are experiencing significantly better performance ratings for key metrics including warranty claims processing time, cost recovery from suppliers/vendors and, ultimately, both customer satisfaction and their respective financial KPIs.
There is no mistake – if your organization finds itself behind the curve with respect to (1) the automation of its existing warranty management processes (or lack thereof); (2) its ability to meet (if not exceed) its customers’ demands or requirements; (3) its ability to recover costs from its suppliers/vendors; or (4) dealing with the costs associated with running its warranty management operations; this gap will likely only get larger over time – unless it considers implementing a new warranty management solution. The 2017 survey results clearly show the impact that doing so will have on the organization – and its bottom line.
The leading warranty management organizations (i.e., those that have already attained, or are poised to attain best practices status) are doing so mainly by taking steps to:
- Automate their existing manual or partially automated processes
- Develop and/or improve the KPIs they use to measure their performance over time
- Foster closer working collaboration between product design and service
- Institute/enforce process workflow improvements for supplier recovery
- Streamline overall operations
- Streamline parts return processes to improve overall efficiency
- Restructure for improved warranty management oversight and accountability
- Purchase and/or upgrade to an fully automated warranty chain management solution
The survey results clearly show that the gains made in performance improvement among those organizations that have implemented a “new” warranty management solution in the past three years or less have been substantial, essentially making the case that the most effective means for driving performance improvements is via the automation and integration of all key warranty management functions, facilitated through the implementation of a state-of-the-art, warranty management solution.
[Don’t forget to take our 2018 Survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018_SFG-WCM]