[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":71},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":70},"insights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records","Supplier On-Site Audits: How to Keep Records and Make Them Reusable - JEDP Digital Platform","If a second-party audit leaves only basically conforming, the nonconformances cannot be rechecked the next year. Findings should be recorded by supplier, material family, and process, and should enter supplier status, performance, and the next checklist. A major item constrains ordering. The plan and nonconformances stay in JEDP-QMS. Status and order constraints stay in JEDP-SRM.","supplier site audit,second-party audit,nonconformance,supplier audit,audit record,supplier management,SRM,IATF16949","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fsrm-slide6.webp",[13,30,44],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":19,"articleSection":20,"keywords":21,"image":11,"author":22,"publisher":24,"isPartOf":25,"mainEntityOfPage":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records#article","Supplier On-Site Audits: How to Keep Records and Make Them Reusable","zh-CN","2026-11-06","SRM · Supply chain","supplier site audit, second-party audit, nonconformance, supplier audit, audit record, supplier management, SRM, IATF16949",{"@id":23},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":23},{"@id":26},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":28,"@id":29},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records",{"@context":14,"@type":31,"itemListElement":32},"BreadcrumbList",[33,38,42],{"@type":34,"position":35,"name":36,"item":37},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":34,"position":39,"name":40,"item":41},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":34,"position":43,"name":17,"item":29},3,{"@context":14,"@type":45,"@id":46,"mainEntity":47},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records#faq",[48,54,58,62,66],{"@type":49,"name":50,"acceptedAnswer":51},"Question","How many suppliers should we audit per year?",{"@type":52,"text":53},"Answer","Set frequency by risk, not by averaging the number of suppliers. Frequency depends on the material's effect on finished-goods function, that supplier's nonconformance history, and whether the process is outsourced. Measure critical-supplier coverage and open items. Do not substitute the number of audits.",{"@type":49,"name":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"Can video or remote replace an on-site audit?",{"@type":52,"text":57},"Document checks, correction rechecks, and annual follow-up where a record already exists can be done remotely. A first audit, a first article for a new process, and a special audit after a major quality incident require a site visit to check equipment parameters, work in process, and the actual operation. If remote work cannot obtain that evidence, it is not the whole basis of a second-party audit.",{"@type":49,"name":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"What if a supplier refuses an on-site audit?",{"@type":52,"text":61},"A scheduling conflict is a matter of timing. A refusal to accept the audit should be written into the onboarding conditions in advance: listing as an approved supplier requires acceptance of a second-party audit. A supplier that does not accept that condition does not enter the approved list. Adding the requirement after approval is substantially harder to enforce.",{"@type":49,"name":63,"acceptedAnswer":64},"Must the auditor come from quality?",{"@type":52,"text":65},"The auditor must understand the process and must not audit a category that the auditor purchases. Purchasing provides the business scope, quality provides the judgment, and process engineering provides the process requirements. A buyer who follows that supplier day to day and issues a major nonconformance alone does not have sufficient independence.",{"@type":49,"name":67,"acceptedAnswer":68},"We already have a nonconformity module in QMS; do we need a separate audit module?",{"@type":52,"text":69},"Do not build an isolated module. The plan and nonconformances of a second-party audit stay in JEDP-QMS, are summarized by supplier together with incoming nonconformances and customer complaints, and move into 8D. JEDP-SRM reads closure status for supplier status, performance, and order constraints.","\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 · Supply chain\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Supplier On-Site Audits\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Second-Party Audits\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Nonconformities\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Supplier On-Site Audits: How to Keep Records and Make Them Reusable\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">Before the annual second-party audit, last year's report concluded basically conforming. The two nonconformances had no owner, due date, or closure evidence. On site, mold maintenance and first-piece dimensions still had to be checked again. If the audit record cannot enter supplier status, performance, and the next checklist, the trip leaves only an archived file.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-11-06\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~10 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing Digitalization · SRM · Supply Chain\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>Being able to retrieve the audit report does not mean a nonconformance can be rechecked\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Each finding must state the object, the fact, the grade, the evidence, the owner, and the closure evidence\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Records are attached to supplier, material family, and process, so one approved status does not cover every material\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Closure conditions state the verification evidence; the originator and the verifier are different people\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>JEDP-QMS manages the audit and nonconformances; JEDP-SRM uses the conclusion to constrain status, performance, and ordering\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"上年结论无法复核\">Last year's conclusion cannot be rechecked\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"发现要能被别处读到\">A finding has to be readable elsewhere\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>A record is reusable when, after it leaves the report, onboarding, performance, the next audit, and ordering can each read its status.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Onboarding review can see whether the finding changed supplier status, not only a recommendation to add the supplier to the list.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Performance evaluation can see whether the finding was closed on time, and counts it in the corrective-action score.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The next audit checklist lists the finding as mandatory and marks it for recheck.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>When purchasing places an order, it can see the constraint a major nonconformance places on new items or on volume.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"一条发现记哪些字段\">Which fields one finding keeps\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The fields must be able to restate the fact three months later and show what evidence closes it.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Field\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What to record\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Object\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Supplier, material family, and process\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Basis\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Standard clause or customer requirement\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Check item\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>A question that can be judged\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Finding\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Time, equipment, and the missing fact\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Judgment\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Major, minor, or observation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Evidence\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Lot, record number, and photo number\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Rectification\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Owner, due date, and action\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Verify\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Verifier, evidence, and closure date\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"按供方物料和工序挂载\">Attach the record to supplier, material, and process\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"结论进入四处业务\">The conclusion enters four transactions\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"关闭要写验证证据\">Closure states the verification evidence\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Level\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What closure must provide\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Major nonconformity\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Consecutive conforming lots and an on-site recheck\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Minor nonconformity\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Sample acceptance and a document change\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Observation item\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Place it on the next audit as mandatory\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Customer-specific requirement\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Verify as the customer requires\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"JEDP-里审核和供方状态如何分工\">How audit and supplier status are divided in JEDP\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"按这四步落地\">Land it in these four steps\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>First complete existing reports to the fields above, and confirm that each finding can restate the fact and the closure evidence.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Fix the checklist by material family. Do not add or remove checks ad hoc by supplier.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The audit task brings in that supplier's open items and marks them for recheck.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>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.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>Demonstrate with last year's supplier:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Enter the supplier name and list every past audit and the open items.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Open one finding and see the lot, the record number, or a numbered photo.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Open items appear on this checklist and are marked for recheck.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>After the conclusion is approved, the supplier-status change has an approval record.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>When the nonconformance is closed, performance shows the corresponding event, and the deduction can be traced to that item.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>While a major nonconformance is open, the purchase order is blocked or shows an explicit limit.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM supply solution: onboarding, performance, and order constraints\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>QMS quality solution: audits, nonconformances, and 8D\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Supplier onboarding scorecard + audit record template\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=\"#上年结论无法复核\">Last year's conclusion cannot be rechecked\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#发现要能被别处读到\">A finding has to be readable elsewhere\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#一条发现记哪些字段\">Which fields one finding keeps\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#按供方物料和工序挂载\">Attach the record to supplier, material, and process\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#结论进入四处业务\">The conclusion enters four transactions\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#关闭要写验证证据\">Closure states the verification evidence\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#JEDP-里审核和供方状态如何分工\">How audit and supplier status are divided in JEDP\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#按这四步落地\">Land it in these four steps\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\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 implementation cases\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 scorecard + audit record template\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>How many suppliers should we audit per year?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Set frequency by risk, not by averaging the number of suppliers. Frequency depends on the material's effect on finished-goods function, that supplier's nonconformance history, and whether the process is outsourced. Measure critical-supplier coverage and open items. Do not substitute the number of audits.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can video or remote replace an on-site audit?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Document checks, correction rechecks, and annual follow-up where a record already exists can be done remotely. A first audit, a first article for a new process, and a special audit after a major quality incident require a site visit to check equipment parameters, work in process, and the actual operation. If remote work cannot obtain that evidence, it is not the whole basis of a second-party audit.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>What if a supplier refuses an on-site audit?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>A scheduling conflict is a matter of timing. A refusal to accept the audit should be written into the onboarding conditions in advance: listing as an approved supplier requires acceptance of a second-party audit. A supplier that does not accept that condition does not enter the approved list. Adding the requirement after approval is substantially harder to enforce.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Must the auditor come from quality?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>The auditor must understand the process and must not audit a category that the auditor purchases. Purchasing provides the business scope, quality provides the judgment, and process engineering provides the process requirements. A buyer who follows that supplier day to day and issues a major nonconformance alone does not have sufficient independence.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>We already have a nonconformity module in QMS; do we need a separate audit module?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Do not build an isolated module. The plan and nonconformances of a second-party audit stay in JEDP-QMS, are summarized by supplier together with incoming nonconformances and customer complaints, and move into 8D. JEDP-SRM reads closure status for supplier status, performance, and order constraints.\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\" data-line=\"srm\" data-aud=\"boss q\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM · Supply chain\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Supplier onboarding\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>Onboarding answers only three questions; red lines must precede total scores, and observations cannot pass as conforming. A good sample does not mean the process holds up — four stages can be prepared in parallel, but volume release must unlock in sequence.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-03-12 · ~9 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-onboarding-risk\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\" data-line=\"srm\" data-aud=\"boss\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM · Supply chain\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Supplier performance\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>The reason the radar chart looks good while orders cannot be cut is that evaluation results never reach decisions. How to set sub-scores and red lines, how corrective actions move from quality into purchasing’s view, and why elimination is hard when there is no backup.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-27 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-performance-exit\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\" data-line=\"qms\" data-aud=\"q\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Incoming Material Inspection\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch3>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fh3>\n        \u003Cp>An inspector rules a lot nonconforming, the paperwork goes into the quality folder, and purchasing keeps ordering. Inspection output must become input to supplier management; the loop has to be welded at four nodes — receiving, disposition, exception and performance.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-05-21 · ~10 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fiqc-supplier-quality-loop\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n      \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003C\u002Farticle>\n",1793937990891]