Supplier On-Site Audits: How to Keep Records and Make Them Reusable

Last year's conclusion cannot be rechecked

Last year's report recorded two facts: mold-maintenance records were missing for three months, and first-piece confirmation was unsigned. Neither had a number, an owner, a due date, or a closure status. The attachments were a shop-wide photo and a rack photo, and neither could be tied to a shift or a lot.

Purchasing found the file in the shared directory. Quality asked whether the two items were closed, and purchasing could not confirm it from the report. The supplier said the ledger had been replaced and first-piece was now signed. On site, the new ledger recorded only the maintenance date, not the maintenance items or the person who performed it. The first-piece signature said inspected and had no measured dimensions. One correction was incomplete. The other had a signature and no evidence.

That conclusion depended on stopping the line for this visit. Last year's record provided no object that could be rechecked. The report can prove that an audit took place. It cannot prove the current status of the nonconformances.

A finding has to be readable elsewhere

A record is reusable when, after it leaves the report, onboarding, performance, the next audit, and ordering can each read its status.

• Onboarding review can see whether the finding changed supplier status, not only a recommendation to add the supplier to the list.
• Performance evaluation can see whether the finding was closed on time, and counts it in the corrective-action score.
• The next audit checklist lists the finding as mandatory and marks it for recheck.
• When purchasing places an order, it can see the constraint a major nonconformance places on new items or on volume.

A finding that exists only in the report PDF cannot support any of those decisions. Take one nonconformance from last year. If the owner, current progress, verifier, and closure date cannot be stated, the record is still only archived.

Which fields one finding keeps

The fields must be able to restate the fact three months later and show what evidence closes it.

Process control is inadequate cannot direct a correction or define how to verify it. Basically conforming writes a report with nonconformances and a report with none as the same conclusion, so later status and performance cannot cite it. Photos must carry the finding number. A note that says site photos cannot be matched to the fact six months later.

Last year's two items should have been written separately: a named machine lacked parameter records on stated dates; first-piece said inspected and had no dimension. Grade, owner, due date, and verification method sit on the same record as the fact.

Attach the record to supplier, material, and process

If the record hangs only on the supplier name, material A can be stable and material B repeatedly nonconforming while the file still says approved. If it hangs only on the material, a dimensional problem at one supplier and an appearance problem at another become one action.

The record is attached to the supplier, the material family, and the process at the same time. Outsourced heat treatment, plating, and coating are kept apart from in-house processes: an in-house process is corrected at that supplier, while an outsourced process also has to be checked against that supplier's control of the sub-tier. Injection molding and coating at the same supplier are recorded separately, so one combined score does not average away a process that repeatedly exceeds the limit. When a customer asks for the sub-tier, the process record must be able to say who performs the process and whether it has been audited.

Check a supplier that provides more than three material families. If the audit record cannot say which family and which process the problem belongs to, the attachment dimensions are insufficient.

The conclusion enters four transactions

Onboarding: submitting the audit conclusion raises a supplier-status change, which may be approved, conditionally approved, suspended, or cancelled. The approver, effective time, and report stay in the same workflow. If the report says approved and the file still says pending, a customer review sees two conclusions.

Performance: closing a nonconformance writes a performance event, including type, occurrence date, and whether it closed on time. The score comes from these events. A second set of deductions unrelated to the audit is not kept. The same problem is not deducted once in the audit and again in performance, and it is not left out of both.

Next audit: when the audit task is created, that supplier's open findings and the previous observations are placed on the checklist and marked for recheck. The auditor confirms whether the action was carried out and whether the evidence points to the agreed lot. The checklist is fixed by material family. If two consecutive audits of the same supplier do not use the same checks, a change in conclusion cannot be told apart from a change in the standard.

Ordering: while a major nonconformance is in effect, new-item release or existing-item volume is limited. An exception must name the approver, the reason, the number of times, and the recheck date. Without an exception path, the business continues to order outside the system and the rule is not executed. Supplier status and red lines in JEDP-SRM block subsequent orders. They do not depend on a verbal confirmation from purchasing.

An auditor does not audit a category that the auditor purchases. The person who raises a nonconformance does not verify that same item. The permanent action is reflected in at least one of the work instruction, the control plan, or the inspection standard. A training sign-in sheet with no document change is not closure evidence.

Closure states the verification evidence

Temporary action for a major nonconformance includes quarantine, a hold on shipment, or tightened incoming inspection, and the due date is written on the nonconformance. Closure does not use correction completed as its only statement. Evidence must point to a lot or a shift. An 8D template whose equipment model does not match the site cannot be verification material for that supplier.

How audit and supplier status are divided in JEDP

The plan, execution, nonconformances, and report of a second-party audit are managed in audit and review in JEDP-QMS. Incoming nonconformances, audit findings, and customer complaints enter the same nonconformance and 8D pool and are summarized by supplier, so the same problem is not recorded once in each of three ledgers. Closure requires the action to be implemented, effectiveness to be verified, and documents to be updated, consistent with CAPA closure.

JEDP-SRM does not keep a second quality ledger. Onboarding reads the audit conclusion and updates status on the supplier master. Performance writes on-time closure into the evaluation. Order collaboration blocks ordering while the supplier is suspended, cancelled, or has an open major nonconformance. The quality-improvement flow carries the 8D and uses the same disposition and due date as QMS. SQE and purchasing see the same record.

Those two nonconformances from last year should therefore reappear on the audit task, show their status on the supplier file, and constrain the purchase-order screen. The audit collects evidence. Supplier status and later orders use that evidence.

Land it in these four steps

1. First complete existing reports to the fields above, and confirm that each finding can restate the fact and the closure evidence.
2. Fix the checklist by material family. Do not add or remove checks ad hoc by supplier.
3. The audit task brings in that supplier's open items and marks them for recheck.
4. Then connect the conclusion to supplier status, the performance event, and the order constraint. If only one of the three is connected, the others can still be carried out outside the system.

Demonstrate with last year's supplier:

1. Enter the supplier name and list every past audit and the open items.
2. Open one finding and see the lot, the record number, or a numbered photo.
3. Open items appear on this checklist and are marked for recheck.
4. After the conclusion is approved, the supplier-status change has an approval record.
5. When the nonconformance is closed, performance shows the corresponding event, and the deduction can be traced to that item.
6. While a major nonconformance is open, the purchase order is blocked or shows an explicit limit.

If quality and purchasing have not yet named the auditor and the verifier, write independence into the audit plan before enabling status changes. If the checklist is not yet split by material family, fix the checks first, or successive conclusions cannot be compared. Until those two are settled, the system only stores the current report as it is, and the next audit still cannot recheck it.

Once the fields, the checklist, and the status link are in place, what opens before next year's visit is the open items and the closure evidence, not a PDF whose only conclusion is basically conforming.

• SRM supply solution: onboarding, performance, and order constraints
• QMS quality solution: audits, nonconformances, and 8D
• Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first
• Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation
• IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes
• Supplier onboarding scorecard + audit record template