Customer Service Procedure

Procedure number	09
ISO/IEC 17025 reference	Clauses 7.1, 8.6
Revision	00
Effective date	[Enter date]
Approved by	[Quality Manager / Laboratory Director]

1. Purpose

To define how the laboratory communicates with customers, reviews and documents requests and contracts, manages deviations from agreed work, and monitors customer satisfaction — ensuring that the laboratory understands what the customer needs and can deliver it reliably.

2. Scope

This procedure applies to all interactions between the laboratory and its customers, from initial inquiry through to delivery of results and post-report follow-up. It covers:

• Request and quotation handling — Receiving, clarifying, and documenting customer requests for testing or calibration
• Contract review — Ensuring the laboratory can meet the customer's requirements before accepting work
• Communication during work — Keeping the customer informed of progress, delays, deviations, or issues
• Subcontracting notification — Informing customers when work will be performed by a subcontractor
• Customer feedback and satisfaction — Collecting, evaluating, and acting on customer feedback
• Confidentiality — Protecting customer information and proprietary data

This procedure does not cover the technical execution of tests or calibrations (addressed by Procedure 10) or the format of reports and certificates (addressed by Procedure 16 and Procedure 17).

3. References

• ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Clause 7.1 — Review of requests, tenders and contracts
• ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Clause 8.6 — Actions to address risks and opportunities (customer satisfaction component)
• ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Clause 4.2 — Confidentiality
• ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Clause 7.1.8 — Deviations from contracts
• Procedure 00 — Document and Record Control
• Procedure 06 — Externally Provided Products and Services
• Procedure 14 — Complaints, Nonconformity and Corrective Action
• Procedure 16 — Testing Reports

4. Definitions

Term	Definition
Customer	Any organization or individual that requests laboratory services. Includes internal customers (other departments within the same organization) and external customers (third-party clients, regulatory bodies, research collaborators).
Request	A customer's initial inquiry or submission asking the laboratory to perform testing, calibration, or related services.
Contract	A documented agreement between the laboratory and the customer that defines the scope of work, methods, turnaround time, reporting requirements, and commercial terms. May be a formal written contract, a purchase order, a work order, or a verbal agreement that is subsequently documented.
Contract review	The process of evaluating a customer's request to confirm that the laboratory has the capability, capacity, and resources to meet the stated requirements before accepting the work.
Deviation	Any change to the agreed scope of work, method, turnaround time, or reporting format that occurs after the contract has been accepted.
Tender	A formal offer or quotation submitted by the laboratory in response to a customer's request for services.
Customer feedback	Any communication from a customer regarding the laboratory's services — positive, negative, or neutral. Includes formal complaints (handled under Procedure 14), informal feedback, survey responses, and unsolicited comments.

5. Responsibilities

Role	Responsibility
Laboratory Director	Approve non-standard contracts or significant deviations from standard terms. Ensure adequate resources are available to meet customer commitments.
Quality Manager	Maintain customer service records, including contracts and feedback. Coordinate customer satisfaction surveys. Track and report trends in customer feedback.
Technical Manager	Evaluate the laboratory's technical capability to meet customer requirements during contract review. Define method-specific turnaround times. Approve technical deviations.
Analysts	Communicate any issues that may affect agreed turnaround times or deliverables to the Technical Manager promptly.
Customer contact personnel	Receive customer requests, provide quotations, communicate progress and results, and document all significant customer interactions.

6. Procedure — Receiving and Reviewing Requests

6.1 Receiving customer requests

Customer requests may be received by telephone, email, online submission form, or in person. Regardless of the channel, the following information is obtained and documented:

• Customer name and contact details
• Description of the items to be tested or calibrated (material type, sample matrix, quantity)
• Tests or calibrations requested, including specific methods if the customer has a preference
• Required turnaround time
• Reporting requirements (format, language, specific data to be included, decision rules for conformity statements)
• Any regulatory or specification requirements the results must satisfy
• Special handling or storage requirements for samples
• Whether the customer requires notification before subcontracting

For the battery materials laboratory, typical requests include:

• Elemental composition of cathode materials (ICP-OES) — Ni, Co, Mn, Li, and trace impurities
• Moisture content of electrode powders (Karl Fischer)
• Particle size distribution (laser diffraction)
• Specific surface area (BET)
• Phase identification and crystallinity (XRD)
• Electrolyte impurity profiling (HPLC-UV)

6.2 Contract review

Before accepting work, the Technical Manager (for technical aspects) and the Quality Manager (for QMS aspects) review the request to confirm:

1. Technical capability — The laboratory has validated methods, calibrated equipment, and competent personnel to perform the requested tests. If a requested method is not within the laboratory's current scope, this is identified before acceptance.
2. Capacity — The laboratory has sufficient capacity (instrument time, analyst availability) to meet the requested turnaround time without compromising the quality of ongoing work.
3. Method suitability — The requested method (or the laboratory's standard method) is appropriate for the customer's sample type and requirements. If the customer specifies a method, the laboratory confirms it can perform that method. If no method is specified, the laboratory selects an appropriate method and informs the customer.
4. Reporting requirements — The laboratory can meet the customer's reporting format, language, and content requirements. If the customer requires a conformity statement (pass/fail against a specification), the decision rule to be applied is agreed and documented.
5. Subcontracting — If any part of the work will need to be subcontracted, this is identified and the customer is informed before acceptance (per Procedure 06).
6. Confidentiality — Any specific confidentiality requirements beyond the laboratory's standard policy are identified and agreed.

The review is documented in the Request and Contract Review Record (Appendix 09-App-01).

6.3 Accepting or declining work

Acceptance: If the review confirms the laboratory can meet all requirements, the contract is accepted. The customer receives confirmation of the agreed scope, method(s), turnaround time, and price.

Conditional acceptance: If the laboratory can meet most but not all requirements (e.g., a longer turnaround time is needed, or a different method must be substituted), the laboratory communicates the conditions to the customer and obtains agreement before proceeding.

Decline: If the laboratory cannot meet the customer's requirements, it declines the work and, where possible, suggests an alternative laboratory. The reason for declining is recorded.

6.4 Amendments to contracts

If either the laboratory or the customer needs to change the agreed scope of work after the contract has been accepted:

1. The proposed change is communicated to the other party
2. Both parties agree to the amendment
3. The amendment is documented in the contract review record
4. All affected personnel are informed of the change

Common amendments in the battery materials laboratory include:

• Customer adds or removes elements from an ICP-OES request
• Sample quantity changes (more or fewer samples than originally agreed)
• Turnaround time extension requested by the customer
• Method change required due to sample matrix incompatibility discovered during preparation

7. Procedure — Communication During Work

7.1 Progress communication

The laboratory keeps the customer informed of:

• Confirmation of sample receipt — Acknowledging that samples have arrived, noting their condition, and confirming any discrepancies from what was expected
• Delays — Any circumstance that will cause the laboratory to miss the agreed turnaround time (instrument breakdown, analyst unavailability, unexpected sample matrix issues)
• Deviations — Any change to the agreed method, scope, or reporting format required during the course of work
• Anomalous results — Results that are unexpected or outside normal ranges, where the customer may want to discuss implications before a formal report is issued

7.2 Deviations from the contract

When the laboratory identifies that a deviation from the agreed contract is necessary:

1. The Technical Manager assesses the technical implications
2. The customer is informed of the deviation, the reason, and the proposed alternative
3. The customer's agreement is obtained and documented before proceeding
4. The deviation is recorded in the contract review record and referenced in the final report

Examples:

• A cathode material sample proves difficult to digest with the standard HNO₃/HCl method, requiring HF addition — the customer is informed of the method change and any impact on uncertainty
• An instrument failure means the HPLC analysis will be delayed by three days — the customer is notified and offered the option to wait or withdraw the sample
• A Karl Fischer sample shows unexpectedly high moisture, requiring dilution outside the validated range — the customer is informed that the result will carry a wider uncertainty

7.3 Confidentiality

The laboratory treats all customer information, samples, and results as confidential. Specific controls include:

• Results are only communicated to the customer or their authorized representative
• Sample identity and test results are not disclosed to third parties without written customer consent, except where required by law or regulation
• Laboratory personnel are aware of their confidentiality obligations (covered in induction training per Procedure 04)
• Electronic data is protected by access controls; physical records are stored securely
• When the laboratory is required by law or contractual agreement to release confidential information, the customer is notified of the disclosure (unless prohibited by law)

8. Procedure — Customer Feedback and Satisfaction

8.1 Collecting feedback

The laboratory actively seeks customer feedback through multiple channels:

• Customer satisfaction surveys — Distributed annually (or at another defined interval) to all active customers. Surveys cover turnaround time, report quality, communication, technical competence, and overall satisfaction.
• Post-project feedback — For significant or non-routine projects, feedback is requested upon completion.
• Informal feedback — Comments received during routine communication (phone, email, meetings) are recorded when they contain actionable information.
• Complaints — Formal complaints are handled under Procedure 14 — Complaints, Nonconformity and Corrective Action. However, the complaint data is also included in the overall customer satisfaction analysis.

8.2 Evaluating feedback

The Quality Manager compiles and analyzes customer feedback at least annually (or more frequently if warranted). The analysis considers:

• Trends in satisfaction ratings over time
• Recurring themes (positive or negative)
• Comparison of actual turnaround times against commitments
• Complaint frequency, type, and resolution effectiveness
• Customer retention and loss (and reasons for loss, if known)

Results are reported to the Laboratory Director and discussed during the management review (Procedure 19).

8.3 Acting on feedback

When feedback identifies an area for improvement:

1. The Quality Manager documents the finding and assigns a responsible person
2. An action plan is developed with a target completion date
3. The action is implemented and its effectiveness is evaluated
4. If the feedback reveals a systemic issue, it is entered into the risk register (Procedure 05) or handled as a nonconformity (Procedure 14)

Positive feedback is also documented and shared with relevant personnel — recognizing good performance supports the laboratory's quality culture.

9. Related documents

Document	Reference
Appendix 1 — Request and Contract Review Record	09-App-01
Appendix 2 — Customer Satisfaction Survey	09-App-02
Procedure 00 — Document and Record Control	Procedure 00
Procedure 06 — Externally Provided Products and Services	Procedure 06
Procedure 14 — Complaints, Nonconformity and Corrective Action	Procedure 14
Procedure 16 — Testing Reports	Procedure 16
Procedure 19 — Management Review	Procedure 19

10. Revision history

Revision	Date	Description	Approved by
00	[Date]	Initial issue	[Name]

---

Why this section exists

Section 09 addresses something that is easy to take for granted: does the laboratory actually know what the customer needs, and has it agreed to deliver exactly that?

Most laboratories think of customer service as being responsive and polite. That matters, but it is not what ISO 17025 is primarily concerned with. The standard cares about the contract — the documented agreement between the laboratory and the customer about what will be tested, how it will be tested, what methods will be used, what the turnaround time will be, and how results will be reported. Every misunderstanding between a laboratory and its customer traces back to a gap in this agreement.

The contract review is not a sales process

Contract review is often confused with quotation or order acceptance. It is not. A quotation says: this is what it will cost. A contract review says: can we actually do this? Do we have the method, the equipment, the competence, the capacity? Is the method appropriate for this sample type? Can we meet the turnaround time without cutting corners elsewhere?

The most valuable contract reviews are the ones that result in the laboratory saying no — or saying "yes, but." A laboratory that accepts every request without evaluating its capability is not being customer-friendly. It is setting itself up for late reports, invalid results, or methods applied to sample types they were never validated for.

Why deviations must be communicated before they happen

When a laboratory changes something during the course of work — a different digestion method, an extended turnaround time, a substituted instrument — it is deviating from the agreement. The customer agreed to specific conditions and is expecting results produced under those conditions.

If the deviation is communicated and agreed before it happens, it is a contract amendment. If it is discovered after the fact, it is a potential complaint. The difference is timing: the same change, communicated proactively, builds trust; discovered reactively, it erodes it.

This is particularly important for battery materials testing, where customers often have specifications tied to specific methods. A cathode manufacturer that requires ICP-OES analysis per a specific ASTM method is not just asking for elemental composition — they are asking for results produced by a defined procedure, comparable to results from other laboratories using the same method. Substituting a different approach without discussion may produce technically valid numbers that are commercially unacceptable.

Customer satisfaction is data, not a feeling

Clause 8.6 requires the laboratory to monitor customer satisfaction. Many laboratories treat this as a checkbox exercise — send out a survey, file the results, mention them at the management review. This misses the point.

Customer satisfaction data, collected systematically over time, reveals patterns that individual interactions do not. A single late report is an incident. Late reports trending upward over three quarters is a capacity problem. A single complaint about report clarity is feedback. The same complaint from three different customers is a report design problem. The value is in the trends, not the individual data points.

The feedback loop closes when the laboratory acts on the data and then checks whether the action worked. A laboratory that surveys its customers, identifies that turnaround time is the top concern, invests in additional analyst capacity, and then measures whether turnaround times actually improve in the next period — that laboratory is using customer satisfaction as a management tool. A laboratory that files the survey results and moves on is performing compliance theater.

Common nonconformities

Clauses 7.1 and 8.6 are frequently audited because they are where the laboratory's commitments to its customers become verifiable. Auditors check whether the laboratory reviewed requests before accepting them, whether deviations were communicated, and whether customer feedback is being collected and used. The examples below reflect what they typically find.

Major No evidence of contract review before accepting work

"The laboratory accepted and processed 47 test requests in the previous quarter. When asked to demonstrate that a contract review had been performed for any of these requests, the Quality Manager could not produce review records. Staff confirmed that requests were accepted directly by analysts without any formal review of the laboratory's capability or capacity to perform the work."

This is the most fundamental finding against Clause 7.1. Contract review does not need to be elaborate — for routine, repeated work it can be a simple checklist confirming that the method, equipment, and competence are in place. But some evidence that the review happened must exist. Without it, the laboratory cannot demonstrate that it evaluated its ability to meet the customer's requirements before committing to deliver.

Major Method deviation not communicated to the customer

"A batch of cathode material samples could not be fully digested using the laboratory's standard HNO₃/HCl method. The analyst added HF to achieve complete dissolution without informing the customer or documenting the deviation. The final report referenced the standard method with no mention of the HF addition."

This is both a contract deviation and a reporting integrity issue. The customer agreed to results produced by the standard method. HF digestion changes the analytical conditions, may introduce different interferences, and may carry a different measurement uncertainty. By not communicating the change, the laboratory denied the customer the opportunity to agree, object, or request that the results be flagged. The report is also technically inaccurate because it cites a method that was not followed as described.

Minor Customer requests not fully documented

"Customer requests were received by email and accepted verbally by the Technical Manager. While the emails were retained, no formal contract review record documented what was agreed — including the specific methods to be used, turnaround time, or reporting format. When asked what turnaround time had been committed, different staff members gave different answers."

The emails contain some information, so this is not a total absence of records — but the lack of a clear, consolidated agreement means there is no single reference point for what the laboratory committed to deliver. Ambiguity about turnaround time or method creates risk: if the customer's expectation differs from what the laboratory understood, neither party has documentation to resolve the disagreement.

Minor No customer satisfaction monitoring

"When asked how the laboratory monitors customer satisfaction, the Laboratory Director stated that no complaints had been received in the past year. No customer survey, feedback mechanism, or systematic collection of satisfaction data had been implemented."

The absence of complaints is not evidence of satisfaction — it is the absence of data. Customers who are dissatisfied but do not complain simply leave. Clause 8.6 requires active monitoring, not passive waiting. A survey, a post-project call, or even a structured review of repeat-business patterns would satisfy the requirement. The key is that the laboratory seeks feedback rather than assuming silence means approval.

Major Customer not informed of subcontracting

"Specific surface area (BET) analysis for a customer's samples was subcontracted to an external laboratory because the in-house BET analyzer was under repair. The results were included in the laboratory's report without indicating that the BET analysis had been performed externally, and the customer had not been informed of or agreed to the subcontracting arrangement."

This mirrors the finding in Procedure 06 but from the customer service perspective. The customer contracted with this laboratory, not the subcontractor. They may have chosen this laboratory specifically for its BET capability. Including subcontracted results without notification is a transparency failure that, if discovered by the customer, will damage the relationship — and that an auditor will always flag as major.

Minor Customer feedback collected but not analyzed or acted upon

"The laboratory had distributed a customer satisfaction survey six months earlier and received 12 responses. The completed surveys were filed but had not been compiled, analyzed, or discussed in the management review. No actions had been identified or implemented in response to the feedback received."

Collecting feedback is the first step, not the last. If survey results are filed without analysis, the laboratory has the data but is not using it. The management review is the natural venue for discussing customer satisfaction trends and deciding whether action is needed. Unreviewed surveys are a minor finding, but they suggest the customer feedback loop is open — data goes in, but nothing comes out.

How to use these examples

Customer service nonconformities tend to fall into two patterns: gaps in the agreement (no review, no documentation of what was promised) and gaps in communication (deviations not notified, subcontracting not disclosed, feedback not acted upon). When reviewing your own system, test both: for any recent job, can you show what was agreed, and can you show that any changes were communicated? If both answers are yes, your customer service process is functioning. If either answer is no, you have a gap an auditor will find.