- EN
In late February 2026, COGENG received a procurement request from a Dutch customer for two excavator harnesses. One of the harnesses had previously been reported as mismatched. This communication involved the additional purchase of the other "pending" harness and the combined delivery of both units.
The customer had high requirements for delivery speed and explicitly requested DHL Express to ensure rapid receipt. COGENG demonstrated a prudent attitude toward product accuracy, but faced challenges as the customer could not provide a physical sample for verification. This case documents the complete process from order confirmation, payment, production confirmation, to logistics dispatch, reflecting common communication challenges and solutions in cross-border industrial parts procurement.
Customer Initiation: At 8:20 AM, the customer mentioned "there is still one pending item," indicating that the previous harness order needed to be followed up.
COGENG Response: The supplier sent an Alibaba payment link at 10:21 AM, stating that shipment would occur "within three days" if the customer completed payment that day, clarifying that both harnesses would be shipped together.
Customer Clarification: Before payment, the customer repeatedly confirmed the delivery timeline and noted that "the other harness has not been shipped," showing concern about delivery progress.
Logistics Insurance Dispute: At 12:50 PM, the customer noticed a "logistics insurance" fee on the payment link, stating they had never paid such a fee and requesting its removal. COGENG responded quickly, confirming at 1:04 PM that the fee had been removed, and the customer completed payment shortly after.
Customer Emphasis on Shipping Method: After payment, at 2:00 PM, the customer reiterated, "Please send via DHL urgently, it is the fastest way."
Summary: The payment phase went smoothly overall. COGENG demonstrated quick responsiveness to customer needs, especially in adjusting fees. The customer’s clear preference for a shipping method set the stage for subsequent logistics arrangements.
COGENG Initiated Confirmation: After payment, COGENG-HUGO stated on the morning of February 29 that "the factory has started overtime production" but requested reconfirmation of the old part number (20Y-06-31660) and asked for relevant videos or photos.
Customer Frustration: At 10:42 AM, the customer expressed noticeable dissatisfaction, saying, "I have been asking for 27 days, and you are still asking me for photos or videos," adding that they only had "the harness that connects to the display."
COGENG Sent Factory Photos: At 6:04 PM, the supplier sent photos from the factory, explaining, "Based on the video you provided, you need the longer harness," adding that "previous customers also ordered this model" and asked if it matched.
Customer Ambiguous Confirmation: At 9:12 PM, the customer replied, "It is hard to compare," but stated, "I believe it is the longer one," and again inquired about the shipping time.
COGENG Again Requested Old Sample: On the morning of March 1 at 9:32 AM, COGENG-HUGO again suggested, "Send us the old sample to avoid errors." The customer explicitly refused, stating, "The machine does not have that harness," and emphasized, "The three-day promise has passed, please ship immediately."
COGENG Risk Notice: At 10:37 AM, COGENG-HUGO clearly stated: "If you cannot provide the needed information, we will send both together. If there is still an error after shipment, we are not responsible," explaining this was to "avoid another mistake."
Customer Escalation: At 11:30 AM, the customer said, "The machine never had that harness in the first place, there is no sample," and asked, "Do you think I have a bunch of old machines lying around?" They repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the shipping delay.
COGENG Final Confirmation: At 11:55 AM, COGENG-HUGO made a final confirmation: "You initially provided the part number for the harness we sent, but later said it was wrong. Now we need to confirm if what you want matches the photo we sent. If not, you assume the risk, no returns, no refunds."
Customer Final Confirmation: Between 12:37–12:38 PM, the customer sent several messages, emotionally stating, "How am I supposed to know what a coiled harness looks like? I’m not a fortune teller," and finally gave a clear instruction: "Just send it to me."
COGENG Confirmed Shipment: At 9:40 AM the next day (March 2), COGENG-HUGO replied, "Okay, we will ship immediately."
Summary: This phase was the core conflict point. COGENG made multiple attempts to obtain accurate information to ensure quality control and avoid liability, but the customer could not provide the necessary materials due to practical constraints, leading to an "information deadlock." Ultimately, COGENG broke the deadlock by clearly transferring risk and acting only after receiving the customer’s instruction to "ship anyway." While this caused some frustration during communication, it effectively closed the loop from a business perspective.
Customer Follow-Up: At 3:40 AM on March 2, the customer asked, "What happened to my order?"
COGENG Response: At 9:46 AM on March 3, the supplier replied, "Shipment has been arranged, please be patient."
Customer Confirmation of Shipping Method: At 10:02 AM and 10:07 AM, the customer twice confirmed whether DHL Express was used, emphasizing the need for "ultra-fast delivery," then said, "Okay, it looks like the correct one."
COGENG Confirmed Logistics: At 10:09 AM, COGENG-HUGO confirmed, "Yes, DHL Express."
Customer Requested Tracking Number: At 1:19 PM on March 5, the customer again messaged, "Still waiting for the tracking number."
COGENG Provided Tracking Info: At 2:17 PM, COGENG-HUGO provided the final logistics information: "Latest DHL tracking number: ****417261."
Summary: After shipment, the customer remained highly attentive to the logistics status. Although COGENG was slightly delayed in providing the tracking number, they ultimately met the customer’s need for tracking information. The customer expressed initial trust after confirming the shipping method.
III. Core Issues and Solutions
| Issue Category | Specific Issue | COGENG’s Approach | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Asymmetry | Customer could not provide old sample or clear photo | Repeatedly requested reference materials; sent factory photos; clarified risk | Customer assumed risk |
| Delivery Time Pressure | Customer highly sensitive to "3-day shipment" promise | Explained confirmation process; shipped quickly after receiving customer’s instruction | Customer accepted arrangement |
| Fee Dispute | Customer objected to "logistics insurance" fee | Immediately removed fee and resent payment link | Customer satisfied, payment completed |
| Shipping Method Confirmation | Customer explicitly requested DHL Express | Cooperated throughout; ultimately provided DHL tracking number | Customer acknowledged arrangement |
Strong Risk Awareness: COGENG avoided blind production and shipment by clearly defining risk responsibility, protecting its interests and preventing further losses.
Relatively Fast Response: Whether adjusting fees or confirming shipment, COGENG responded promptly, demonstrating good service orientation.
Complete Communication Records: Key commitments (e.g., 3-day shipment, DHL delivery, risk responsibility) were clearly documented in chat logs for future reference.
Aligning Promises with Delivery Cadence: The initial "3-day shipment" commitment did not fully account for internal confirmation processes, leading to mismatched expectations. Future promises should allow sufficient confirmation time.
Timing of Risk Communication: While the risk disclaimer was ultimately necessary, it could have been introduced earlier in a more measured way to reduce customer anxiety.
Timeliness of Tracking Number: The customer repeatedly followed up for the tracking number, indicating strong demand for tracking visibility. Proactively providing the tracking number immediately after dispatch would enhance the customer experience.
This case captures a typical cross-border industrial parts procurement process, covering order confirmation, fee negotiation, technical verification, risk communication, and logistics delivery. Despite incomplete information, COGENG successfully closed the order by clearly defining responsibilities, maintaining communication records, and executing at the right time.
Although the customer experienced emotional fluctuations during communication, their attitude softened after receiving DHL tracking information, suggesting that efficient logistics played a key role in restoring trust.
Report Prepared By: COGENG Business Support Department
Report Date: March 2026
Excavator Solenoid Valve
ExcavatorWireHarness
