Case Study: Wiper Blade Supply for a mining contractor in Central Asia
Source:Case /
Time:2026-09-18
Wiper Blade for A mining contractor in Central Asia
A mining contractor came to us with a wiper blade programme for Central Asia. The brief was ordinary and unforgiving at the same time: a fixed launch window, a landed cost that had to survive freight and duty, and a part that had to match an existing sample. This case records what was specified, what went wrong in sampling and how the bulk order landed.
The starting point
- Warranty claims traced back to a single lot
- A supplier who changed material without saying so
- A fitment that looked right on paper and failed on the bench
What was specified
| Part | Wiper Blade |
|---|---|
| Client | A mining contractor |
| Market | Central Asia |
| Volume | 50,000 pieces across 4 specifications |
| Base material | PU Leather |
| Sampling rounds | 3 |
| Delivery window | 10 weeks from PO to ex-factory |
| Compliance | SGS |
How it was resolved
- The specification was rebuilt around PU Leather and the tolerance locked before bulk.
- A pre-production sample was approved and kept as the golden reference.
- Production ran with in-line inspection and a mid-run photo report.
- Cartons were packed to the client's own barcode and ratio specification.
- Documentation shipped with the goods instead of after them.
Result
- 50,000 pieces delivered inside the 10-week window.
- Unit cost held within 2.0% of the original quotation.
- Inspection-related rejection stayed under 1.5%.
- The specification is on file, so reorders reproduce the approved sample.
What we would repeat
Lock the material standard before sampling. Once the base changes, every downstream approval has to be redone and the calendar slips.
Planning something similar?
Tell us the model, the fitment and the quantity and we will hold a production slot for you.
