[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":72},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-supplier-onboarding-risk:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":71},"insights\u002Fsrm-supplier-onboarding-risk","Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first - JEDP Digital Platform","Directory expansion has occurred, but those willing to increase volume have not; most likely, the entry process has only completed the filing. Data, capabilities, business, and observation periods need to be unlocked sequentially for volume growth; as long as the red line is not crossed, entry into the directory is allowed, and the evidence chain is more important than the total score.","Supplier Admission Management, Supplier Evaluation System, SRM Supplier Admission, Supplier Risk Management","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-supplier-onboarding-risk#article","Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first","zh-CN","2026-03-12","2026-11-06","SRM · Supplier","supplier qualification management, supplier evaluation framework, SRM supplier onboarding, supplier risk management",{"@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-supplier-onboarding-risk",{"@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-supplier-onboarding-risk#faq",[49,55,59,63,67],{"@type":50,"name":51,"acceptedAnswer":52},"Question","The small batch trial production has been approved; can it be directly converted to a qualified supplier?",{"@type":53,"text":54},"Answer","It can enter the observation period, but it is not recommended to equate it directly with mass production qualification. Prototype trials can show that it can be made, while mass production proves it can be made stably. At the end of the observation period, a judgment is made based on incoming materials, delivery performance, and the closure of abnormalities together.",{"@type":50,"name":56,"acceptedAnswer":57},"Should traders and manufacturers use the same set of access requirements?",{"@type":53,"text":58},"The main framework can be the same, but the competency verification items must diverge: traders focus on the authenticity of supply sources, traceability, and inventory buffering; manufacturers focus on processes, equipment, process capability, and change management.",{"@type":50,"name":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Can multiple factories in the group share the same directory?",{"@type":53,"text":62},"Can be shared but must have scope control. Reuse across factories requires review of key qualifications, capacity, and logistics radius; Factory A being qualified does not automatically allow Factory B to proceed.",{"@type":50,"name":64,"acceptedAnswer":65},"Why did problems occur after going online even though the admission score was very high?",{"@type":53,"text":66},"It is common for the overall score to be raised by business and relationship points, while the red line and process capability are diluted. Looking at the red line is more useful than looking at the overall score; scores can only be used as a reference for ranking.",{"@type":50,"name":68,"acceptedAnswer":69},"What should be done if the supplier is unwilling to cooperate with the on-site audit?",{"@type":53,"text":70},"Key categories should not be included in the qualified list without on-site or equivalent remote audits. Non-key categories can start with samples and small batches, but the authority to scale up must still be controlled.","\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\">Supplier onboarding\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Risk Assessment\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Qualified Supplier\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">At the new supplier onboarding meeting, a stack of business licenses, system certificates, and sample photos was ready. Purchasing asked, 'Can they be added to the list?' Quality said, 'The samples are okay,' and the technical team said, 'We've never been to the site.' Three months later, when the first batch saw volume fluctuations, everyone dug out that 'total score 85' from back then — the list often gets longer not because the standards are too lenient, but because the risks were never blocked at the door.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-03-12\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~9 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>The goal of access approval is to block unacceptable risks, and the output is a chain of evidence and scaling permissions, not a visually appealing scorecard.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The four sections of data, capability, business, and observation can be prepared in parallel, but volume access permissions must be unlocked sequentially.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>If the red line items are not passed, they cannot enter the qualified list; observation items can only be conditionally admitted and must not be diluted by the total score.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>On-site audits should bring real materials, failure modes, and change scenarios; continuous small-scale tests demonstrate capability better than single batch samples.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Approval for access does not equal delegation of authority: the observation period must have indicators and conclusion, and the directory must be able to link with performance exit\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"建档会开完-风险还在门外排队\">The filing meeting is over, but risks are still waiting outside in line.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The conference room projector was stuck on 'New Supplier Access Score.' The business score was maxed out, the quality column said 'Sample OK,' and the attachments were the business license and a group photo. The purchasing manager casually entered the code into the qualified supplier list, and the planner could place the first order next week. Three months later, IQC kept failing, delivery schedules didn’t match, and changes were communicated through WeChat—during the review, everyone said, 'The score was pretty high back then.'\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The list of qualified suppliers is getting longer, but those who are truly willing to scale up have not increased. Usually, it's not that the evaluation forms are insufficiently detailed, but rather\u003Cstrong>Access approval only completed registration, but did not complete risk identification\u003C\u002Fstrong>Blocking unacceptable risks before the cooperation starts is cheaper than holding someone accountable afterwards, switching lines, or claiming compensation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"准入其实只回答三件事\">Admission actually only answers three things\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Before launching more templates, first clearly define the admission decisions that need to be served:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Questions to be answered\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What will happen if I can't answer?\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Can this company be included in our category and factory scope?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Misuse across factories and categories; only found out the qualifications were inappropriate after something went wrong\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>After joining, how much share is given first, and which indicators should be monitored?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Once entered into the list, the full quota is assigned, and fluctuations immediately enter the production line.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Under what conditions must one downgrade or withdraw?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Bad money occupies a position for a long time, and the switching cost increases the longer it is delayed.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>If an organization only wants 'digitalized contact lists,' there is no need for a complex scoring model; if it wants to manage directory inflation, the scoring must be able to restrict the orderable range and the observation tags.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"红线先于分数-观察项不能冒充合格\">The red line comes before the score, observation items cannot pretend to be qualified\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The laziest shortcut in practice is using the overall score to cover up a veto. It is recommended to first freeze two types of fields at the category level:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Red line item\u003C\u002Fstrong>——However, they cannot be included in the qualified list: key qualifications are missing, core processes are not traceable, major quality\u002Fsafety incidents have not been closed, critical measuring tools are unavailable, the scope of licenses does not match, etc.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Observation item\u003C\u002Fstrong>——Conditional approval allowed: packaging is being improved, some inspection tools are pending calibration, and minor documents are being completed. Observations must clearly state the deadline for completion and the maximum proportion if not completed, rather than verbally saying 'just use it for now.'\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Business hard terms (delivery commitment methods, advance\u002Fdelay rules, quality deductions, change notification deadlines) should be listed separately to avoid 'cooperate first, then discuss details' at the negotiation table. Business scores and relationship scores can exist, but\u003Cstrong>Cannot erase the red line\u003C\u002Fstrong>The dashboard defaults to displaying individual items and red line status, with the total score used only as a summary.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"样品漂亮-不等于过程扛得住\">A beautiful sample does not mean the process can withstand it.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The watershed of capability verification is: with the same person and the same process, whether three consecutive batches of small-scale trials or pilot production can fall within specifications. A sample picked from a batch can only prove the 'possibility of making it,' and cannot unlock mass production share.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Do not go empty-handed for an on-site audit. Bring at least three things: a real materials list or key dimensions, the failure modes you encounter most often, and a change scenario (such as material substitution). Audit conclusions should be recorded in the system fields, not just in the auditor's notebook.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>What are you looking at?\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>The evidence to be obtained\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common 'Looks good but ineffective'\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Process and Equipment\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>List of Key Process Equipment, Maintenance and Accuracy Records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only the factory brochure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Process Control\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Control plan, key dimension sampling inspection or SPC records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Verbally say 'We all check'\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Change Management\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Sample Notice of Material\u002FProcess Change and Customer Confirmation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Changes rely on WeChat groups\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Subcontracting and Outsourcing\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Subcontracting List, Incoming Material Inspection, and Traceability Examples\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>\"Do the core yourself\" but cannot clearly define the boundaries\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Nonconformity and Recall\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Major non-conformities and closure evidence in the past 12 months\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Claiming zero customer complaints but without a ledger\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Delivery capability\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Capacity definition, bottleneck processes, typical lead time composition\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only gives a 'fastest one week' promise\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Traders and manufacturers should not pretend to have the same set of capabilities: traders focus on whether the supply source can be disclosed, whether batches can be traced to production lots, and whether they have matching safety stock or verifiable transfer cycles; manufacturers focus on process routes, equipment, process capabilities, and engineering changes. Main processes can be shared, but verification items must diverge. Traders who cannot clearly explain their supply source should not be included in the qualified list for critical components.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四段可以并行准备-放量必须串行解锁\">The four stages can be prepared in parallel, but volume release must be unlocked sequentially.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Document review, capability verification, business terms, observation period — documents can be collected simultaneously, but\u003Cstrong>If the previous section has not passed, the volume increase permission of the following section should not automatically take effect\u003C\u002Fstrong>。\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Stage\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Questions to be answered\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Output\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common laziness\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Data Review\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Whether the qualifications cover the categories and regulations\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>List of Certificates, Systems, and Environmental Certifications\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only accept business licenses\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Competency Verification\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Can it consistently meet the specifications?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Process\u002FEquipment\u002FGauge\u002FTrial Production Records\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only look at the appearance of the sample\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Business terms\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Who Gets to Decide on Price, Payment Terms, Delivery Time, Breach, and Changes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Contract, price agreement, claim terms\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Oral agreement on delivery date and deductions\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Observation period\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Can it withstand fluctuations after an increase in volume?\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Tracking Dashboard and Case Closure Conclusion\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Once entered into the list, the full quota is released\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The root cause usually falls into three areas: confusing red lines with observations; capabilities stopping at samples; contact lists in Excel, orders in emails, and performance in another sheet—the access approval conclusions cannot constrain subsequent ordering.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"观察期不是-过了试用期就转正\">The observation period does not mean 'you will be made permanent after the probation period'\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>During the observation period after approval for entry, it is recommended to fix four things: tighten incoming material sampling (based on risk), track delivery performance separately, implement temporary measures for quality issues within 48 hours and a root cause plan within 7 days, and hold a three-option closure meeting at the end (approved \u002F continue observation \u002F downgrade and exit). Without a closure meeting, the observation period essentially does not exist.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Observation period indicators should share the same source as subsequent performance sub-items to avoid having a different set for newcomers and a different one for veterans. Admission addresses 'whether one can join,' while performance addresses 'share and retention after joining'—the two chains should connect on the same set of risk labels, rather than adding a separate score sheet at the end of the year.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"名录体检-先抽五家-再谈全员换模板\">Directory physical examination: first select five companies, then discuss replacing the template for all employees\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>It is not recommended to immediately replace the admission templates for all categories. Sort by risk and share, and first conduct a check on the existing catalog:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Randomly select five 'qualified suppliers' and ask both the procurement and quality departments: What is the biggest risk for this supplier, what indicators are observed during the monitoring period, and what are the exit triggers.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>If unable to answer, downgrade to restricted or under observation, and supplement evidence, rather than continuing with full allocation;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>New suppliers are required to go through four stages, and without a system status, they cannot place their first strategic material order.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>At least one case of actual demotion or withdrawal should be completed each year, proving that the lists have entries both coming in and going out.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>When the group shares a common directory, cross-plant reuse must review the scope; for extremely single sources that cannot be replaced in the short term, make exceptions explicit (risk registration and alternative development plans), which is more honest than pretending 'no entry, no purchase'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Supply management solutions typically place registration access, master data, licenses and risk labels, performance evaluation, and rectification elimination within the same lifecycle; observation periods, red lines, and evidence attachments can be configured and linked with share\u002Frectification. The value of JEDP-SRM lies in 'the directory has entries and exits, and volume can be constrained,' not in the animated scoring radar charts. The process should allow drilling down to review tasks, attachments, and observation conclusions, with regular meetings debating evidence rather than impressions.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"哪些场景先别硬推全量准入改造\">Which scenarios should not be forcefully pushed for full-scale access transformation first\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>The daily performance metrics (incoming material qualification, on-time delivery) themselves are inconsistent: first unify the process data, then clean up the directory;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Materials are not distinguished as key\u002Fnon-key: the same strict access rules apply to all categories, which either makes implementation difficult or turns it into a formality;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Procurement, quality, and technology are not aligned with the red line: the system cannot prevent verbal special approvals from the three parties;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Treating access control as a pure punitive tool, without corresponding guidance and reassessment paths: suppliers will conceal problems;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Spot store-style, one-time long-tail procurement: only keep the minimum data and price records, no need for the complete four sections.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Useful process signals include: first-pass rate of red-line items, days to close corrective actions, proportion of suppliers under observation during the observation period and their conversion rate to qualified status, on-site\u002Fequivalent audit coverage of key suppliers, major quality\u002Fdelivery incidents within 90 days of admission, and the number of items removed from the annual list. Using a total score instead of red-line items, giving full quota upon first listing, using a group photo in a PPT as an on-site audit, and only adding without removing — all count as anti-patterns.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"怎么继续\">What to do next\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>This week, randomly select five key 'qualified suppliers' for an evidence chain check: whether the red-line attachments are complete, whether the observation period indicators are running, and whether the exit conditions are written into the category strategy. Those who cannot answer should first be downgraded to restricted or under observation, and then decide whether to supplement on-site audits. The first pricing after admission should enter the sourcing project, rather than placing orders directly after the buyer's verbal negotiation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM Supply Solution: From Access to Performance Elimination\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Sourcing: Request for Quotation, Bidding, and Tendering\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Incoming Material Inspection and Supplier Quality Closed Loop\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Supplier Performance and Share Exit\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Order Coordination: Confirmation, Changes, and Feedback\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=\"#建档会开完-风险还在门外排队\">The filing meeting is over, but risks are still waiting outside in line.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#准入其实只回答三件事\">Admission actually only answers three things\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#红线先于分数-观察项不能冒充合格\">The red line comes before the score, observation items cannot pretend to be qualified\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#样品漂亮-不等于过程扛得住\">A beautiful sample does not mean the process can withstand it.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四段可以并行准备-放量必须串行解锁\">The four stages can be prepared in parallel, but volume release must be unlocked sequentially.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#观察期不是-过了试用期就转正\">The observation period does not mean 'you will be made permanent after the probation period'\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#名录体检-先抽五家-再谈全员换模板\">Directory physical examination: first select five companies, then discuss replacing the template for all employees\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#哪些场景先别硬推全量准入改造\">Which scenarios should not be forcefully pushed for full-scale access transformation first\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 small batch trial production has been approved; can it be directly converted to a qualified supplier?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It can enter the observation period, but it is not recommended to equate it directly with mass production qualification. Prototype trials can show that it can be made, while mass production proves it can be made stably. At the end of the observation period, a judgment is made based on incoming materials, delivery performance, and the closure of abnormalities together.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Should traders and manufacturers use the same set of access requirements?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>The main framework can be the same, but the competency verification items must diverge: traders focus on the authenticity of supply sources, traceability, and inventory buffering; manufacturers focus on processes, equipment, process capability, and change management.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can multiple factories in the group share the same directory?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Can be shared but must have scope control. Reuse across factories requires review of key qualifications, capacity, and logistics radius; Factory A being qualified does not automatically allow Factory B to proceed.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Why did problems occur after going online even though the admission score was very high?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It is common for the overall score to be raised by business and relationship points, while the red line and process capability are diluted. Looking at the red line is more useful than looking at the overall score; scores can only be used as a reference for ranking.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>What should be done if the supplier is unwilling to cooperate with the on-site audit?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Key categories should not be included in the qualified list without on-site or equivalent remote audits. Non-key categories can start with samples and small batches, but the authority to scale up must still be controlled.\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=\"q\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM · Supply chain\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Supplier audits\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Supplier On-Site Audits: How to Keep Records and Make Them Reusable\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>If last year's conclusion is only basically conforming, it cannot be rechecked the next year. Nonconformances should enter supplier status, performance, and order constraints, with JEDP-QMS and JEDP-SRM sharing the same record.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-11-06 · about 10 minutes\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ca class=\"btn btn-ghost\" href=\"\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-audit-records\">Read article\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\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>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          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Buyer says sent, supplier says unseen? Order collaboration starts on one effective PO\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>Order collaboration chaos usually is not due to the supplier being uncooperative, but because confirmations, changes, and delivery 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. ...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-04-09 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990744]