Serious Customer Service Issue

Can this horrible surface be caused by the print direction ONLY?

Because, if the print direction is THIS critical,
I should never have seen a good print of this model.
Triangular ground view, one side rounded - there is no way for the operator to orientate it in a "good" direction.
But I'm pretty satisfied with the surface of my printed models.

I think,
either the printer settings for the airplane were somehow wrong,
or there is a problem with the uploaded files.
Maybe both, and perhaps exacerbated by the print direction.
But it can't be JUST the print direction.

PS
Since Shapeways offers a polishing service, I don't understand why you guys still order these models in standard WSF. ^^

Because there were too many defects - missing props, broken struts etc - from the polishing process. It also removed much of the detail sometimes. Gross defect rates (missing parts etc) approached 20%. That's why polishing was removed as an option.

Polishing is a tumbling process, fragile parts don't survive it.

My 2c: I think Shapeways should print all parts always in the orientation given. If that's not practical, I want them to throw an error and reject the part. I don't care whether orientation is thought of as Y-up or Z-up, but I want it to be specified by me with 100% consistency.

This is always one of the first things I settle with a 3DP supplier: orientation matters to me, and if you can't print my part as supplied then don't rotate, reject. If it doesn't fit in today's build bed, I'll wait. If my preferred orientation is uneconomical, I'll pay more.

I know these processes have layers. I know how big they are. I know where I want the stepping to be visible. I know the size of my polygons. I understand how all these things work. They're part of my design process. But if you change the orientation unpredictably, all my efforts are useless!

This is what I want about orientation. I will never deviate from wanting exactly this. I hope you'll consider it.

It appears from the "official" response that Shapeways know that print orientation is a factor with these models, however they continue to print in the "wrong" orientation because they want to fill the print tray to keep costs down. Is this a reasonable assessment of the situation?

The problem here is that they are making a conscious decision here to print what they know could be a sub standard model, then using the cost implication as a justification.

If you stood back and thought about this for a few minutes you would see that the problem could be avoided simply by printing something else in that spare tray area that was not dependent on orientation. What would the cost of this minor alteration to practice be? Possibly a minor delay to the customer, but that would be accepted if the customer understood it was to ensure a reasonable quality of their print. For every sub standard model that the customer complains about the cost to Shapeways, is either the cost of the reprint including staff time, which is nil profit, with additional postage and packing, not to mention the time staff take to deal with the complaint. This is probably greater than the original profit margin anyway. If Shapeways refund, then they lose the whole deal.

I can therefore understand why Shapeways are keen to stop refunds \ reprints, and certain (bad) business models would adopt or continue with the “up yours” approach to customer service, gambling that the lost future business from an individual customer would be less in value than the time and effort to change their process and eliminate the problem. After all, very few of the customer base would be prepared to push this matter to a legal solution.

Problem is, this is the 21st Century, and we all can now share our experience online – facebook, twitter, forums and blogs. Shapeways is a web based business, so they need to realise that if they don't address this issue, their Google search results will pretty soon start to return results mentioning bad customer services and experiences. In short, the customer base is now much more connected, so bad customer service (as I think this is) becomes an issue with a far larger audience of present and possibly future customers.

So, is this matter really that important to them to resolve? Change the process to try and avoid the problem, because we all know they can, and give a guarantee that if the print is sub standard they will reprint. IF they do, then I, and I'm guessing the vast majority here will breath easy, place orders, and continue to spread the word that Shapeways is a company you can trust and put your money with. If not, every day this continues the number of Google hits on blogs, websites and forums is going to rise exponentially. A couple of days ago this was a single complaint by email, imagine where we will be next week?

Here's another example: the detail of the radiator on the top wing shows a 0.2mm rectangle on a larger 0.4mm rectangle.

You can see that the stepping here is comparable to the 0.2mm detail resolution.



This was one I actually managed to remediate by covering with fine-grain putty, sanding smooth, then using a round file to insert the curves where they should be. But it took 15 hours to save a $10 model from the scrapheap, and doesn't look quite as good as one printed correctly.

Thanks for sharing your problem!I totally agree with you!This along with some other time wasting issues will definitely make me think twice before placing an order here again!In my opinion the fact is that the plane looks like trash and it is their obligation to replace it!!In the end it is the customer who has the right-or not?

Exactly. And the converse is true too. Don't give a guarantee, and the word will get out that Shapeways products can sometimes be good, but sometimes useless. That it's a gamble, and you will sometimes be throwing your money away if you chance it.

I've told literally a hundred potential customers that "sometimes you will get a dud print - but they'll reprint it free and include it in your next order". Now what do i tell them? That it's a gamble, where a $200 order might be all OK, or might be a complete loss? "Do you feel lucky"?

Good Morning again everyone. There are many different issues being discussed here. And believe me I've read every post . Every thing you have stated is being discussed. To prevent further disconnect between what everyone is being told we're meeting to unify our response. This thread has brought some issues to the surface, that are obviously important to a lot of people in the community. And understandably these issues aren't "flip a switch" to fix. So if you wish to express your feelings on these issues, feel free. Definitely share any expertise, or experience. Just take a breath first, our team will worry about the expenses, and how to keep you guys and your customers happy.

ok Mike, here's one from today -

And follow-up

The model in question is Extruded Pipe Die D6 - within! only available in FUD (so no powder) and the model complies with the FD & FUD design rules -
The whole point of the model is to have the trapped wax, without it the design is useless - other examples at https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&&th=5 289&goto=33678#msg_33678

Anyhow, waiting on a reply from Joost about how to move this forward.

No hurry. There may be multiple issues here.

Technical ones - orientation, settings (60 or 180 micron), or a catastrophic combination of both.

Managerial ones - ensuring quality when subcontracting.

Financial - if unacceptable prints can only be reduced, not eliminated, how to deal with the additional expense. Maybe a small surcharge on troublesome models? You can't print models at a loss.

Lots of suggestions here on possible solutions, both interim and long-term. Take your time. Get it right, but plan on reviewing the solution periodically to see if there's change. Is the rate of unacceptable models increasing? Decreasing? What's the cost of printing fewer models but not wasting raw material and preventing costly re-prints? Can models be marked as "orientation sensitive" so delayed and others substituted in that run if no suitable slot is available? Maybe only use certain sub-contractors with good records for those, or requiring certain printing equipment be used.

You are under a lot of pressure here, but getting it right is more important than a quick-fix. Customers understand that. Marking some models as "orientation sensitive" on the sales side, and warning of possible additional delay in printing them would be acceptable.

Bottom line: we know that the 3D printing process is capable of producing models like this one. It is technically possible.





Models like the one below are apparently not an inevitable part of the 3D printing process, not to this extent. The numbers and printer resolution specifications just don't add up, this is no mere "inevitable printing line" issue if the numbers are correct.





It doesn't matter how efficiently you can print such low-quality products. You need to identify what is the difference in the processes that produced these two, and it's less expensive to print fewer per tray and have them all like the first picture, than to print more per tray like the second, requiring reprints or damaging the brand and dramatically reducing sales, possibly to zero from an ever-growing market.

Your call. It may be that you decide to get out of the market here, especially since market is growing and you may be taking a loss on each print due to re-prints.

In the first 10 orders, I never had a dud. In the last 4, dud rate has been ~50%. It could be a coincidence, or something's changed. It's morale-sapping when of 25 prints, 23 look like the bottom picture. Without refunds, this becomes untenable to customers. With refunds, it looks like it's untenable to you.

Paul,

That's a different issue, feel free to start another thread and I can explain what I've been told about this.

Zoe,

We should be hearing shortly about the results of some discussion, with more in-depth discussion to come!

I've no need to start another thread, the issue is in hand and moving forward, however my issue is totally related to the gist of this topic - i.e. design rules and print expectations.

Paul

Zoe and Pilgrim,
I can't speak for Shapeways, and I am curious how they will present the issue, but I can give you an unvarnished and direct explanation that will put it in a nutshell without any marketing spin. The apparent lack of action is not intentional. They do care about your experience and want to deliver a good product at a great value. The change you are requesting is not as simple as it appears because the system is automated. There is no person making the decision about what model goes in what build and how it is positioned. What Josh (VP of Engineering) alluded to in the recent post was that they have to invest a lot of time and effort into basically re-building the whole platform because they outsourced the development the first time. Anyone who has ever hired outside developers knows they don't like to release their source code, and when they are obligated to under contract, it will be in their own personal style, i.e. obfuscated to an extent that other developers will have an awful time trying to interpret and modify it because the original coders were paid to make something that functions, not to obey standards, which takes far more effort.

Shapeways had their platform built on the cheap the first time around, and it will take 10x more effort just to get things standardized in a way that they can make even the most basic changes without the whole thing collapsing. Tying knots is whole lot easier than unraveling them.

In this age of technology where the value of every function from stock-trading to supermarket checkout is called into question, the practical reality is always somewhere in the middle. Much the same as outsourcing manufacturing, you get what you pay for.

Hi Guys,

note: **There's a summary version of my post below**

Thank you for the feedback. Like you Pilgrim, I'm a great believer in Facebook, blogs and twitter as channels to communicate with companies. That's one of the reasons we set up UserVoice, the forums and an open channel of discussion - because we WANT to hear your concerns and praise - we are, as you say, an online company. By all means let out your frustrations, and please also let us know your issues so we can fix them. With that in mind, we have emailed you directly in response and have offered a reprint of this particular plane.

Quote:
It appears from the "official" response that Shapeways know that print orientation is a factor with these models, however they continue to print in the "wrong" orientation because they want to fill the print tray to keep costs down. Is this a reasonable assessment of the situation?

That is not quite correct. While we do try to maximize the print tray for efficiency there are models which have known issues (like these planes) that we strive to orient in the "right" way, every time. Since we have been receiving a number of complaints from planes over a long period of time, we KNOW that planes should be oriented nose down for the best quality. Since late May, we have been in communication with all our production partners to encourage them to always orient these models in this way. Only because we get feedback like this do we learn about the optimal orientation like this. So please, continue to give us feedback, here, on Facebook, and via email to service@shapeways.com. We do read it, and we do take it seriously.

With regards to this particular order, to be fair, this was an honest mistake and an oversight on two fronts, the second being that we "don't refund stepping anymore". Ideally, we would have offered a reprint or refund as we have in the past. We are working on clarifying the policy about acceptable levels of stepping, but in this case, the fact that it's a known issue that planes only print well nose-down, and one we try to control for, we should accept the liability for our mistake in orientation.

Our customer service agents work tirelessly to address many complex issues: orientation, stepping, wall thickness, design rules and material properties to name just a few. We're only human, and occasionally some issues slip through. We do pride ourselves on fixing our mistakes. We give you 4 weeks to file a complaint, and the sooner you let us know, the faster we can fix it and prevent it from happening again. Obviously, seeing how passionate our community is about this issue, we realize we need a clearer policy in place, both for us and for you to make it easier to be consistent.

For transparency, this plane is from an order from April, and we are still honoring a reprint/refund this far out. I hope this shows how much we care about keeping our customers happy. Because there have been so many planes ordered, and feedback about optimal orientation, we KNOW that they should be oriented nose down for the best print. Since we were not getting it perfect every time we put measures in place to ensure they are flagged to be printed nose down. We have seen a fall in complaints of mis-printed planes since then. Right now for most models, we do our best to chose an optimal orientation, and if we mess it up, we will offer a reprint or refund and when there is a known issue with group (like planes) we do DO our best to accommodate it - as we have by flagging them to be printed nose down. In the long term, we DO WANT to introduce specifying print orientation as a service, so customers can chose the optimal orientation for their models, every time.


As Michael mentioned, we are meeting to finalize a clear policy on refunds and reprints, and yes Zoe, we will take our time to get it right, and seek feedback along the way from you, our customers, to come up with something that is fair for everyone. Thank you Aaron for your post, it's a very accurate reflection of our process here!


Here's the short version:
1. Pilgrim, we have contacted you individually regarding this order. We are reprinting it in-house to ensure the correct orientation.
2. Thank you for raising this issue, its leading to a clearer, fairer reprint/refund policy for all.
3. Keep giving us feedback, we need it to learn and grow and keep doing a great job for you.
4. Please, let service know as soon as possible if you have a model you are not happy with. We want you to be happy, but we rely on you telling us in a timely manner.
5. We are meeting to finalize this policy so it is clear and fair for everyone.
5. In the short term, all planes are being printed nose down - this has been happening as of May.
6. In the long term, we will be offering a service to specify print orientation. We want this as much as you do.

Thank you for your continued feedback, I appreciate the discussion. I will update you on the policy we come up with on Tuesday and I would love your input into making it something we all agree on.

Best,
Natalia

Thank you for your generous offer, however I should point out I don't have a model that needs reprinting. All my models have been (so far) acceptable quality of has minor flaws that were not worth chasing. My experience with Customer Services has also been excellent.

My email was to raise concern over the reported change in policy regarding miss-prints. All you need do is reassure the community that where an item which can be printed correctly, you will make an effort to do so, and if you fail or the quality is sub standard, you will reprint or refund.

That's all that is needed.

HI, The order that this complaint originated from is 120932 (ordered on 1st June)

Dude, why the hell did you start this off then if you're a semi-happy bunny?

May I please ask you to respectfully - GROW UP!

I'll assume against the evidence that you are an adult so will answer that one politely

I was informed by a fellow member that there was a change in Shapeways reprint \ refund policy that would in principle impact on everyone who orders or designs through them. The result was a volume rise in customers who would not place orders in future due to the risk they would be paying for a sub standard product without recourse to refund or reprinting. This would be damaging to me as a customer as it would restrict my purchasing, and to the company if it became generally known they were prepared to accept producing sub standard goods.

This strikes me as poor customer service, and as a customer I have the right to raise it as an issue. As I also am involved in teaching customer service to businesses I felt that Shapeways were being both unreasonable and were using what is recognised as bad practice. The reasonable thing to do here is to raise this with them and allow them to respond, which I have done.

It appears that by raising these concerns here and in other places Shapeways have received the feedback and reviewed their decision in the light of that feedback, They are also investigating ways of improving their product by changing their processes to reduce the chance of these sub standard prints occurring. The net result is that the service to the customer has been improved, customer confidence is improved, and with the added bonus that by printing fewer sub standard products their overall costs have been reduced. Shapeways have shown they understand the value of customer feedback and have used it to improve their service. They should therefore be applauded for doing so.

Is that a reasonable answer?

:applause:

I've been dealing with Shapeways for a while. At times, I've accepted a marginal model, not asking for a re-print, just sending photos showing them how to improve.

More often, it's they who contact me, with photos again, asking if something they think may be substandard is acceptable to me before sending it. I've ordered over a hundred different designs,and we know that the physical geometry of these models stretches the boundaries of what's possible. Most often, their standards have been higher than my own, the model's flaws (bent wings etc) easily fixable (by dipping in hot water, and letting it straighten out naturally). The result has been fully up to the most demanding standards.

Simply put, Shapeways has, in the past, provided the best customer service of any firm I know of. In terms of business practices and ethical behaviour, they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk.

Whether this particular issue can now be said to be fixed and completely finished with, I'm not sure at the moment, and will wait for the official word. I am 100% confident though that when it is fixed and closed off, I'll be happy. They've never let me down.

Your assumptions are your own, however, please review what you opened this topic with

There is somewhere between little and no need to start a storm about any issue with Shapeways, now I am not assuming, but I shall state that you are an adult (did you read the T&Cs yet?), and as you may appreciate there are many channels of communication open to you, and any Shapeways customer to resolve issues about any order that is placed - the big proviso is that each and every customer has also agreed to Shapeways T&C's when they sign in to order an item, so publically whinge or privately resolve, but don't expect support when YOU change the tune.

[edit] upon reflection, my words may be too blunt, but I wrote them, so they stay - appologies if anyone is offended - paul