Chuck Hartle is the founder and president of PartsEdge, a powertool for New Car Dealerships Parts Operations, helping to increase DMS utilization, improves efficiency, accuracy, and profitability with solid and consistent plans for eliminating all types of idle inventory in a Parts Operations. With over 40 years in the auto industry Chuck has the know-how and love for the industry that has enabled PartsEdge to identify the biggest needs of dealerships.

Streamlining Returns in the Automotive Parts Industry: A Spotlight on Toyota's Simplified Process

Understanding the Complexity of Parts Returns

In the automotive parts industry, managing the return process can often be an intricate task. Dealerships grapple with multiple criteria when dealing with parts manufacturers. The need for efficiency is paramount. However, not all manufacturers offer straightforward processes, which can frustrate dealerships. On the Parts Management Podcast, Chuck Hartle sheds light on the different return processes across manufacturers, with a keen focus on Toyota.

Toyota’s Simplified Return Process

Toyota Motor Corp (TMC) stands out with a notably streamlined process for parts returns. Chuck Hartle emphasizes the simplicity of Toyota's criteria during the podcast discussion. Toyota dealerships benefit from clear guidelines, reducing the hassle often associated with parts returns. Toyota's approach offers a model that many dealerships wish other manufacturers would adopt.

The three clear criteria for returns are embraced by Toyota dealerships. The first criterion is for parts purchased between 10 to 17 months ago, allowing returns without a receipt for items over $8. Secondly, for parts older than 18 months, dealers can return them but incur a 20% restocking fee. Lastly, the TORA program enables returns of special orders within 90 days.

The Challenges Across Other Manufacturers

While Toyota offers a streamlined approach, other manufacturers maintain more complex systems. This complexity often leads to frustration amongst parts managers. Chuck highlights this during the podcast and mentions the difficulties dealerships face when working with manufacturers like GM and Chrysler. These brands often lack sufficient return allowances, further complicating the process.

Ford also exhibits a more conditional approach. Their RIM program involves accruing money over 60 days, adding layers to the process. These varied criteria across manufacturers demand managers to apply rigorous logic and organization.

RIM and the Challenges of Tracking Parts

A significant issue discussed is the complications within the RIM (Replenishment Inventory Management) framework. Many dealerships report problems with parts ordered under RIM, yet later not qualifying as RIM upon return. This discrepancy can bewilder managers responsible for inventory control. It requires dealers to meticulously track where and how parts were acquired, whether through GM or an alternative supplier.

Chuck discussed a case where a manager discovered discrepancies with air filters bought from different sources. The dealership had to navigate the complex channels to reconcile these issues. Such cases underline the importance of understanding the original source of parts purchases.

Could Other Manufacturers Learn from Toyota?

There's a sense of admiration for Toyota’s approach throughout the podcast conversation. Toyota's streamlined system offers dealerships a way to manage returns smoothly. This efficiency ultimately conserves time and resources. In contrast, other manufacturers could benefit from evaluating their return processes. Simplifying criteria can prevent frustration and enhance dealer-manufacturer relationships.

Manufacturers like GM and Chrysler could consider revisiting their return allowances. A simplified process could potentially lead to fewer disputes and faster resolutions. Additionally, aligning return processes with Toyota's model could create a more harmonious experience for dealerships.

Building Better Processes for the Future

In summary, the podcast with Chuck Hartle underscores the different frameworks across manufacturers. The focus highlights Toyota's refreshing simplicity in handling returns. Contrarily, other brands present a labyrinth of stipulations that can overwhelm parts managers.

For dealerships, understanding these distinctions is critical. It's important to develop optimized processes that align with each manufacturer's unique criteria. As the industry evolves, both manufacturers and dealerships alike should seek harmony in handling parts returns. Transitioning towards streamlined systems can foster stronger partnerships and more efficient operations.

——————————————–

Sponsors:

This show is powered by PartsEdge: Your go-to solution for transforming dealership parts inventory into a powerhouse of profitability. Their strategies are proven to amp up parts sales by a whopping 20%, all while cutting down on idle inventory. If you’re looking to optimize your parts management, visit 🔗 www.partsedge.com.

——————————————–

Takeaways

1. Toyota offers straightforward parts returns.
2. Know part sources for smooth returns.
3. Different makers have varying return rules.

Quote

“What the ASR programs are terrible at doing is tracking credit returns and now guaranteeing the two.” -Chuck Hartle

Connect

Chuck Hartle
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/chuck-hartle-1923ab14

Website: www.partsedge.com

Kaylee Felio

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/gotopartsgirl

Website: www.partsed