In most businesses, when a product is discovered to have a defect that's likely to cause it to fail, the manufacturer issues a recall for the affected units. Is there any reason that shouldn't be true in the computer industry as well? That's what many IT mangers with large installations of Dell Optiplex GX270 systems have to be wondering right now.
"We are not a very large company, but we have nearly two hundred Dell GX270 small form factor PCs," a reader wrote recently. "This is an information business that we're in, so we depend on these systems to get our work done and keep revenue coming in the door. Earlier this year we began to experience problems such as random reboots and power-downs with some of the GX270s. At first we thought it might be a virus or spyware outbreak, but we eventually realized what we were experiencing is a systemic problem with Dell's motherboard. There's an issue with the capacitors that cause them to start 'bulging' and then eventually burst."
As has been well documented on DSL Reports and elsewhere, PCs from a number of manufacturers suffer from this "bulging capacitor" problem, but a batch of GX270 motherboards seem to be especially prone to failure. The wide range of symptoms can mimic power supply, fan, monitor, RAM and disk drive problems, so just identifying the true source is difficult. Once he discovered what was going on, though, the reader found Dell more than willing to replace the motherboards that had clearly gone bad, and replacing them always eliminated the problems.
But as the failure rate for the reader's GX270s climbed over ten and then twenty percent, he realized that just replacing the machines as they broke was going to be a disaster for his company. "The sheer manpower to troubleshoot and assist in getting Dell to come in and replace motherboards one at a time has been very costly," the reader said. "We've probably spent close to $50,000 just in personnel time on this issue, which is a lot for a small staff. And that's not counting the lost productivity for our users from the time their systems start exhibiting flaky behavior."
The reader noticed that several GX270 customers on the Internet -- including on Dell's own forums -- were saying that Dell had agreed to replace all of their motherboards even before they bit the dust. "We began negotiating with Dell on this several months ago, and initially they agreed that we qualified for a 'proactive field replacement' of all the GX270 systems," the reader wrote. "But a few weeks after that promise was made, they backed off due to what they called a 'global motherboard constraint.' We've since had countless e-mails and phone conferences with our Dell sales rep, our sales rep's boss, and the Dell service people about this, and the best deal they're now offering is a very good discount on trading in our unrepaired 270s for 280s."
The reader is quite reluctant to take that deal for a number of reasons. Shelling out more money to Dell to replace systems that shouldn't yet need replacing, on top of what the motherboard problems have already cost his company, is not an idea that sits well with the reader or his management team. Dell's reneging on its promise of a proactive field replacement rankles, particularly since there's evidence that at least some larger customers are indeed getting motherboard replacements for all of their GX270s. After all, if there aren't enough replacement motherboards to go around, does that mean that the smaller customers -- for whom the negative impact might be much more painful -- are the ones who should be left in the lurch?
I contacted Dell several weeks ago and asked them for a policy statement on GX270 replacements. Several spokesmen promised me an answer, and I really expected they'd at least come back with a statement to the effect that only broken GX270s are being replaced. But there's been no comment -- or even a "no comment" -- and at this point I have to assume there's not going to be. So, at least until we hear from more readers who've dealt with Dell on this issue, we're not going to know for sure if the company has different replacement policies for different-sized customers. But, hey, you and I could both take a wild guess on what the truth is there.
Meanwhile, the reader is left with a very difficult decision, as he fully expects that the two-thirds of his GX270s that haven't been fixed will all fail pretty soon. "Open up one of these boxes at random and you see some of these capacitors swelling up," he says. "It will be very expensive for us to replace all our GX270s with PCs from another vendor, but we are considering it. I've been a loyal Dell customer for many years, and I've brought them a lot of business, so I am very disappointed that they would step back from their promise to proactively fix these systems."
What's your take on this one? Should Dell have to replace all the systems with the defective capacitors, or should they indeed be able to charge whichever customers they choose for replacements of those machines that haven't actually broken yet? You can post your comments on my website or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
UPDATE: 8-30-05 3:00 PM A Dell spokesman has provided the following response to my original query about the Optiplex GX270 replacement policy. "As a result of higher than expected demand for the affected boards, lower than expected yields on reworked boards, and that this is an industry-wide issue, supply is constrained and only failures can be replaced via Next Business Day service," the spokesman said. "Regional procurement and service teams are managing the supply for customer failures. While Dell had been proactively replacing these systems in the recent past, and attempts to continue to honor previous commitments to proactively replace units, the constrained supply prohibits Dell from continuing to proactively replace units. By actively managing fix-on-fail activities and tightening the returns process, Dell is working to improve the supply issue. As supply improves, Dell will work towards a replacement policy that better meets customer needs."
Read and post comments about this story here.
1:26:52 AM 
|
|
