[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":72},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-po-collaboration-breakpoints:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":71},"insights\u002Fsrm-po-collaboration-breakpoints","Buyer says sent, supplier says unseen? Order collaboration starts on one effective PO - JEDP Digital Platform","Order collaboration chaos is usually not due to the supplier being uncooperative, but because confirmations, changes, and delivery date feedback are not on the same document. Confirmation timestamps, change versions, and secondary confirmations, as well as feedback and commitments, are separated, yet the interface status on both sides is consistent.","Purchase Order Collaboration, SRM Order Management, Purchase Change Management, Supplier Collaboration Platform","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm-slide6.webp",[13,31,45],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":20,"articleSection":21,"keywords":22,"image":11,"author":23,"publisher":25,"isPartOf":26,"mainEntityOfPage":28},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-po-collaboration-breakpoints#article","Buyer says sent, supplier says unseen? Order collaboration starts on one effective PO","zh-CN","2026-04-09","2026-10-17","SRM · Supplier","purchase order collaboration, SRM order management, purchase change management, supplier collaboration platform",{"@id":24},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":24},{"@id":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":29,"@id":30},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-po-collaboration-breakpoints",{"@context":14,"@type":32,"itemListElement":33},"BreadcrumbList",[34,39,43],{"@type":35,"position":36,"name":37,"item":38},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":35,"position":40,"name":41,"item":42},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":35,"position":44,"name":17,"item":30},3,{"@context":14,"@type":46,"@id":47,"mainEntity":48},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-po-collaboration-breakpoints#faq",[49,55,59,63,67],{"@type":50,"name":51,"acceptedAnswer":52},"Question","The supplier only knows how to use WeChat and Excel, what should we do?",{"@type":53,"text":54},"Answer","First use a light portal: confirm the link and feedback form. The key is for the actions to be reflected in the system status and timestamp, rather than staying permanently in the chat records. The main factory can enter non-critical fields on behalf, but confirmation must be completed by the supplier side.",{"@type":50,"name":56,"acceptedAnswer":57},"Does an oral request for urgent handling count as a change?",{"@type":53,"text":58},"Calculation. Any verbal instructions that affect the delivery time, quantity, price, and delivery address must be completed and reconfirmed within 24 hours, otherwise the plan and reconciliation will inevitably drift.",{"@type":50,"name":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"How to manage a PO with partial shipments?",{"@type":53,"text":62},"Add a delivery schedule to the order line, the remaining undelivered quantity is visible; if short delivery is closed, a reason code is required, and it will be determined whether to generate a backorder line.",{"@type":50,"name":64,"acceptedAnswer":65},"Can price changes and delivery date changes go through the same process?",{"@type":53,"text":66},"The same change framework can be used, but the approval chain and authority matrix should be separated - the price goes to business\u002Ffinance, and the delivery time goes to planning\u002Fprocurement execution.",{"@type":50,"name":68,"acceptedAnswer":69},"Can the order still be changed after the supplier confirms?",{"@type":53,"text":70},"Yes, but only via a change version. Editing the original without re-confirmation tears up the shared agreement.","\u003Carticle class=\"insight-article\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-container\">\n      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Insights\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Order Collaboration\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Change Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Delivery Date Notification\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Buyer says sent, supplier says unseen? Order collaboration starts on one effective PO\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">At the material shortage weekly meeting, four people pulled out four 'orders': an email PDF, a WeChat screenshot, the current ERP line, and the supplier's Excel sheet. Each wrote their own delivery date, and everyone thought they were right. To make collaboration effective, we must first ensure that both sides are seeing the same valid order at the same time—with a confirmation timestamp, versioning, and acknowledgment of receipt.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-04-09\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~8 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing digitalization · SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fheader>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-takeaways\">\n        \u003Ch2>What you'll take away\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cul>\u003Cli>Orders must be confirmed online by the supplier, and the confirmation timestamp is the starting point for delivery commitments, material preparation, and reconciliation.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Changes will not take effect until they are versioned and reconfirmed; before confirmation, they will be executed as per the previous effective version\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Separation of delivery notice and commitment delivery: the return is the input, and the acceptance of the commitment is the basis of the plan\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Statuses like unconfirmed \u002F in-change \u002F closed must match on both sides—no separate Excels.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Connect strategic suppliers and high-frequency materials first, then the long tail; a light portal is more realistic than forcing their ERP day one.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四张-订单-对质出一个下午\">Four 'orders', a whole afternoon spent confronting them\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The material shortage weekly meeting went into the third hour, still arguing over ‘which version of the delivery date counts.’ The purchasing officer said the email was sent last week; the supplier said they never confirmed it; the planner noted ‘next Wednesday’ in their notebook; the ERP system still shows the original date. Each of the four people clings to their own piece of the truth, and the meeting’s outcome is ‘follow up’—after following up, there are still four pieces.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The core of order collaboration is not about sending out the PO, but about both parties reaching an agreement on the same valid order. Missing confirmations, changes without versions, and feedback not being recorded—any one of these breaks will distort the delivery schedule board, shortage analysis, and reconciliation. The pain point is often said to be 'supplier non-cooperation,' but if you break it down, it is often because the main factory itself does not have a single source of truth.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"发出不等于确认-共同认可要有时间戳\">Sending does not equal confirmation: mutual recognition requires a timestamp\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>POs are issued via email, PDF, or verbally, without a 'pending confirmation' status; it is unclear who within the supplier has the authority to confirm; if confirmation is overdue, no one escalates it, and the order is not discovered to be stuck until a shortage occurs—before confirmation, the main factory has already driven production scheduling based on 'order placed,' and the plan is built on a non-consensus basis.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Minimum rule:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>After publishing, enter 'Pending Confirmation'; the portal can confirm or reject with one click (reasons can be attached).\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Confirm the timestamp is written into the order line, becoming the default reference starting point for delivery commitments and subsequent delivery performance assessments.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Automatically upgrade if not confirmed after the deadline, and restrict downstream material preparation from calculating the full information;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Only confirmed orders enter the shipping schedule and reconciliation scope.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Judgment criteria: Take any strategic material PO at random and see if you can view the release date, confirmer, confirmation time, and confirmed version delivery date within thirty seconds. When the purchasing agent marks the supplier's confirmation to boost the completion rate, it is the most dangerous pseudo-collaboration—the completion rate looks good, but it cannot be evidenced in case of disputes.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"变更没有版本-截图永远打不完\">Changes have no version, screenshots can never be fully taken\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Directly modifying the original order fields overwrites the history; verbal rush requests, inserting orders, or changing quantities are not supplemented; price and delivery dates are mixed in the same chat with unclear approval authority—the supplier still produces according to the old version, while the main factory receives goods according to the new version, and both sides think they are right.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Rules\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Explanation\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Versioning\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Changes in quantity, delivery time, price, and receiving information generate a new version, while the old version remains read-only for record tracking.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Confirm again\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Changes must be reconfirmed by the supplier; before confirmation, the previous effective version shall be followed.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Reason code\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Standardization of customer rush orders, design changes, forecast adjustments, and supplier capacity\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Permission matrix\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Separate the approval chains for price and delivery time to avoid situations where 'changing the delivery time conveniently also changes the price' without anyone reviewing it.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Oral urgent requests also count as changes: instructions affecting fulfillment must be supplemented with orders within 24 hours, otherwise both performance and claims will lack documentation. Changes without a reason code cannot be explained at the end of the period as to 'who exactly is changing the plan'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Reason code\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Ordinary liability\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Whether to reset the delivery benchmark\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Customer rush order \u002F change request\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Main Factory \u002F Customer\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>After confirmation by both parties, it can be according to the new promised date\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Design \u002F Drawing Changes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Main plant technology\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Depending on whether it affects products already in production; written confirmation is required\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Supplier capacity \u002F material shortage\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Supplier\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Generally do not reset the initial confirmation baseline\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Logistics and Force Majeure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>According to the contract\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Mark separately to avoid contaminating regular DAC delivery\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Price renegotiation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Business\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Separate approval from the delivery date field\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"回告停在聊天里-计划员的小本就是第二套-ERP\">Reply saying it's paused in the chat, the planner's notebook is the second set of ERP\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The supplier replies on WeChat with 'next Wednesday or Thursday,' the planner notes it in a small notebook, and the system delivery date remains unchanged; the feedback is then confused with the 'promised delivery date accepted by procurement'—whatever the supplier says goes, or even if procurement changes it, they don't inform the other party; partial shipments have no planned lines, and 'made up' at the end of the month is treated as full compliance throughout.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Separate into two fields:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Report back\u003C\u002Fstrong>: Supplier input, keep history;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Promised delivery date\u003C\u002Fstrong>The internal plan visible value is updated only after the purchase is accepted or rejected.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Feedback is input, commitment is decision-making. Feedback deviations affect performance; short deliveries must be closed with a reason code, and it must be clear whether a supplementary line will be generated. If order collaboration stops at 'delivery date confirmed' but does not enter the shipping plan and actual receipt back-writing, the bottleneck just moves from procurement to the platform — see the delivery topic for that chain.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"双方界面必须看见同一套状态\">Both parties' interfaces must see the same set of statuses\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>State\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Meaning on the procurement side\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Supplier-side implication\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Allowed next step\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>To be confirmed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Published, the plan cannot be fully trusted\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Need to confirm or reject\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Confirm \u002F Reject\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Confirmed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Effective version, capable of driving material preparation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Schedule production according to this version\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Shipping Plan \u002F Changes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Changing\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The new version is pending confirmation, execution will still follow the old effective version.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>See pending changes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Confirm Change \u002F Reject\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Partial delivery\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quantity not delivered can be viewed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Remaining to be issued clearly\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Continue shipping \u002F Short delivery closed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Closed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>No longer accepting deliveries (unless reopened)\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Stop preparing materials\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Archive\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Any parallel status of 'Procurement ERP shows confirmed, supplier Excel is still a draft' will turn into shirking responsibility at the material shortage weekly meeting. The value of the portal is first consistency of status, and only then a good-looking interface.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"轻门户先于-对方上完整-ERP\">Light portal precedes 'the other party completing the ERP'\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>When the supplier's digital maturity is weak, it is sufficient to lightly integrate using a confirmation link and feedback form; do not require the other party to access the full ERP system in the first step. The key is that the status falls into your collaborative system, not in chat records. The main factory can enter non-critical fields on behalf of the supplier, but the confirmation action must be completed by the supplier.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>When advancing, do not fill all three items at the same time: first, only confirm strategic suppliers and high-frequency materials; after the confirmation rate rises, then add change versions and reason codes; finally, expand delivery feedback, accept\u002Freject, and deviations into performance. The effectiveness signals are respectively: unconfirmed orders are visible; \"WeChat order changes\" can be counted and decrease; planned delivery dates match those on the portal.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Order and delivery coordination in the supply plan usually operates according to a release—confirmation—effectiveness state machine, with changes versioned and confirmed a second time, separating reply and commitment. After JEDP-SRM coordinates with the portal, the value lies in 'the same effective version at the same moment,' not in the order list interface. Integration failures must be visible to the business, and silent drift between the portal and ERP two sets of statuses is prohibited.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"先别铺开的场景\">The scene that hasn't been set up yet\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Multiple codes for one item not managed: Even if confirmed, it cannot guarantee that execution points to the correct material;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The special approval path is not made explicit: with just one word from the leadership to skip confirmation, the system becomes virtually ineffective;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The supplier has not implemented strategic segmentation: long-tail and strategic items follow the same complex processes, resulting in excessively high promotion costs;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Pure spot goods, pay on the spot and pick up: only minimal confirmation is required;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The internal plan itself swings on a weekly basis: first, converge on the main factory's planning discipline.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Useful indicators: order confirmation rate and confirmation timeliness, secondary confirmation rate for changes, rate of oral change orders, response rate and deviation distribution of feedback, random checks for uniqueness of effective versions, completeness rate of short delivery closure reason codes. False confirmations, directly modifying the original order to erase history, and recording feedback only in a small notebook—all are anti-patterns.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Prices come from sourcing and benchmarking; order lines should reference the effective price version, rather than verbally negotiating a new price at the time of placing the order. Changes in delivery dates and prices being mixed in the same WeChat message make it unclear who is responsible during end-of-period reconciliation and delivery performance assessment. Overseas suppliers should prioritize ensuring that confirmation, rejection, and acceptance feedback buttons are usable; when translations are missing, these actions are more important to translate first than the promotional materials. When there are multiple organizations in the group, order permissions are isolated by organization to prevent a purchaser from Company A from mistakenly modifying the effective version of Company B.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>After the confirmation rate improves, the first item in the weekly meeting should become the 'List of Unconfirmed and Changing Items' instead of reviewing material shortages. The list should be drillable down to the order line so that disputes shift from impressions to evidence. When the confirmation rate of strategic materials is below the agreed threshold for two consecutive weeks, first suspend the expansion change and feedback functions, make the confirmation actions solid, and then build on that.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"怎么继续\">What to do next\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>This week, first measure the confirmation rate of strategic material orders; if the confirmation rate does not improve, discussing the delivery ranking is meaningless. Then pick ten more orders that are 'said to have revised delivery dates' and check whether the system has versions and secondary confirmation—if not, the stories in the material shortage meetings are not credible. For categories that meet the confirmation rate standard, then check whether the reply\u002Fpromise fields are separated.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM Supply Solution: Order and Delivery Collaboration\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Sourcing: Request for Quotation, Bidding, and Tendering\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>How to have the delivery schedule received by the warehouse\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Outsourced processing reconciliation breakpoint\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Reconciliation, Invoicing, Payment, and Order Activation Version\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Caside class=\"insight-toc\" aria-label=\"On this page\">\n          \u003Ch2>Contents\u003C\u002Fh2>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四张-订单-对质出一个下午\">Four 'orders', a whole afternoon spent confronting them\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#发出不等于确认-共同认可要有时间戳\">Sending does not equal confirmation: mutual recognition requires a timestamp\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#变更没有版本-截图永远打不完\">Changes have no version, screenshots can never be fully taken\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#回告停在聊天里-计划员的小本就是第二套-ERP\">Reply saying it's paused in the chat, the planner's notebook is the second set of ERP\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#双方界面必须看见同一套状态\">Both parties' interfaces must see the same set of statuses\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#轻门户先于-对方上完整-ERP\">Light portal precedes 'the other party completing the ERP'\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#先别铺开的场景\">The scene that hasn't been set up yet\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#怎么继续\">What to do next\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta\">\n        \u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Want to apply this in your plant?\u003C\u002Fstrong>Resources has matching self-assessments and templates—or book a live demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta-actions\">\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=srm#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Self-assessment in Resources\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcases#case-srm\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">SRM acceptance case\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C!-- next-step:BEGIN -->\u003Ca class=\"btn\" href=\"\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm\">Product solution: \u003Cspan>JEDP-SRM Supplier Relationship Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Ca class=\"btn btn-outline\" href=\"\u002Fres\u002Fresources\u002Fkits\u002F01-srm-supplier-onboarding-scorecard.html\">Matching resource kit: \u003Cspan>Supplier onboarding checklist + performance scorecard\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C!-- next-step:END -->\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-faq\" id=\"faq\">\n        \u003Ch2>FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-faq-sub\">Quick answers on this topic—still stuck?\u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=srm\">Contact\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>The supplier only knows how to use WeChat and Excel, what should we do?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>First use a light portal: confirm the link and feedback form. The key is for the actions to be reflected in the system status and timestamp, rather than staying permanently in the chat records. The main factory can enter non-critical fields on behalf, but confirmation must be completed by the supplier side.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Does an oral request for urgent handling count as a change?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Calculation. Any verbal instructions that affect the delivery time, quantity, price, and delivery address must be completed and reconfirmed within 24 hours, otherwise the plan and reconciliation will inevitably drift.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How to manage a PO with partial shipments?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Add a delivery schedule to the order line, the remaining undelivered quantity is visible; if short delivery is closed, a reason code is required, and it will be determined whether to generate a backorder line.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can price changes and delivery date changes go through the same process?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>The same change framework can be used, but the approval chain and authority matrix should be separated - the price goes to business\u002Ffinance, and the delivery time goes to planning\u002Fprocurement execution.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can the order still be changed after the supplier confirms?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes, but only via a change version. Editing the original without re-confirmation tears up the shared agreement.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-related\">\n        \u003Ch2>Related reading\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-related-grid\">\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>RFQ and tender done, yet ERP prices come from memory? Sourcing must leave a write-back conclusion\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The sourcing process breaks down during chat and spreadsheet use, and pricing cannot be traced back. Inquiry, bidding, and tendering processes need to leave traces, price comparisons must be auditable, and final approval must be obtained for setting prices. The results are then written back to the price master data and then transferred to procurement execution. ...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-03-26 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Purchasing as a relay: supplier says shipped, warehouse says no lines—why in-transit never ties\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The in-transit and actual receipts do not match. It is common that the shipping plan, shipping details, dock occupation, and posting back each manage a separate segment. The supplier and the warehouse need to share the same set of statuses, and purchasing will no longer rely on screenshots to communicate...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-09-30 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Outsourcing reconciliation never ties? Split to documents and you find five breakpoints\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>Outsourced reconciliation discrepancies almost never stem from accounting errors, but rather from the lack of mutually recognized documentation when the business occurs. Breaking it down to the document level across five points—material issuance receipt, loss criteria, direct process delivery, rework scrap, and accounting cutoff—shows …\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-05-14 · ~9 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990700]