Is this acceptable as RBT within the new 9001 ... ?

Sure he can...his commitment is to ship when he gets paid, and he expects to get paid after the motors are fabbed.

Risk...yes.
NC...no.
Complaint if he loses the risk and the customer pays early...possibly/probably.
NC or CA coming from that complaint...probably.

 

I am the only sales agent for one of my companies.

I have customers who insist on immediate shipment, and pay more for immediate service, and choose ground shipment across the country (~6 days).
I've had a customer pay for 2nd day air freight to build their stock from 2mnths supply to 3mnths supply.
I have personally promised immediate shipment on payment (with additional charge) when I did not have the goods in stock...then paid a premium to have them fabbed quickly before the money showed up.

There is so much time wiggle-room in the transportation system that getting the sale based on time has a decent cushion around it.
{Did you know that guaranteed overnight delivery is not guaranteed by UPS, FedEx, DHL?}

I have no idea when my goods arrive at the customer...and the PO's with "Dock Date" are useless unless there is a penalty clause attached.

The only customer complaints so far has been in one of two categories:
1. I didn't have it in stock and told them I couldn't ship immediately
2. material stuck in customs for 4 weeks

I am glad that the standard seems to be moving away from "All T's crossed" to "Have you considered..." It allows real life situations to exist in the open, rather than being ignored.

 

IMO - I might be over-simplifying this but any business decision is a decision based on risk. So RBT does play a roll in this scenario, but it is a poor business decision to drive forward only looking in the review mirror. If the sales manager "knows' the customers' payment history from previous orders, and he in essence promises delivery given that history as a way to build in a lead time without telling the customer of the lead time, sure that's risk based thinking. But I would call that poor business thinking instead. The risk of things going wrong in that scenario should be considered way to high for an organization to take on, you are putting an account, the company reputation, and individuals' performance measures within your own company at risk. For what? A sale?

I agree with the explanation of using RBT in determining the various risks of things going wrong, and I know you were not asking if it was a good decision or not but RBT should be utilized to drive a business forward and mitigate risk when possible. If the organization accepts the risk, then that's their right - but when enough risk acceptance turns into doing business without mitigating risk then its just for show and not for dough.

To argue that supplier A over promises, and supplier B is the back up if something goes wrong is a poor business decision. RBT should not replace customer satisfaction or put customer loyalty at risk.

 

Tom... How I would love to concur with you.
And this is what I expect that many new auditors to the new ISO 9001 will also do.
Apply their own RBT to the client situation from an ideal perspective, or from own experience.
Begin to add adjectives like poor RBT., decide the degree of uncertainty as against the customer's assessment.,
There needs to be a lot of unlearning before the new breed of certifying auditors come on-board.
Thanks for adding your insight.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see how RBT auditing evolves.

I do not envy auditors who have to find a "fair" or "even handed" way to apply this concept to a system audit. It will quite a challenge, as this thread shows pretty well.
It is a challenge to find the firm criteria to measure against that also adds value to the process.

One side would lead to auditors judging the company (I don't agree with your analysis)
the other side is the wild-wild-west (you considered risk and took an unwarranted one...but you considered it so it is OK)

Should be a fun ride...