[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":71},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fsrm-supplier-performance-exit: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-performance-exit","Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation - JEDP Digital Platform","The list of qualified suppliers keeps getting longer, but those willing to increase volume have not increased. Performance must be linked to 8D, OTIF, and license red lines, with overdue rectifications visible in procurement. Observation, quantity limits, and exit should have trigger conditions and alternative plans, rather than just issuing a score sheet at the end of the year.","Supplier performance, supplier exit, CAPA on suppliers, SRM scorecards, approved-vendor exit","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":20,"articleSection":21,"keywords":7,"image":11,"author":22,"publisher":24,"isPartOf":25,"mainEntityOfPage":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fsrm-supplier-performance-exit#article","Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation","zh-CN","2026-04-27","2026-11-06","SRM · Supplier",{"@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-performance-exit",{"@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-performance-exit#faq",[48,54,58,62,66],{"@type":49,"name":50,"acceptedAnswer":51},"Question","How often is it appropriate to evaluate performance?",{"@type":52,"text":53},"Answer","Key categories recommend monthly process data and quarterly decisions. There is only one evaluation at the end of the year, making rectification and share adjustments inevitably delayed.",{"@type":49,"name":55,"acceptedAnswer":56},"Can an order be directly canceled due to poor performance?",{"@type":52,"text":57},"Generally, rectification and limits come first; red-line items may trigger a supply suspension assessment. Cancellation or withdrawal must retain decision evidence and alternative plans.",{"@type":49,"name":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"How to coordinate with the onboarding of new suppliers?",{"@type":52,"text":61},"Whether the access solution can enter or not; the share and retention after the performance is resolved. The observation period metrics should be homologous to the performance dimension.",{"@type":49,"name":63,"acceptedAnswer":64},"How to evaluate OTIF being poor but quality being very good?",{"@type":52,"text":65},"Look at it item by item. Poor delivery should trigger delivery rectification and a share ceiling, and should not be smoothed out by the total score.",{"@type":49,"name":67,"acceptedAnswer":68},"Can the system automatically reduce the quota?",{"@type":52,"text":69},"It can indicate overdue and red line risks; share and elimination decisions must go through procurement decision-making and process approval to avoid \"algorithms taking the blame for humans.\"","\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 Performance\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">rectify and eliminate\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Share Management\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">SRM\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Supplier scores look fine but nobody exits? Performance must feed share allocation\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">The radar chart looked great at the supplier conference, but after the meeting, procurement still didn’t dare to cut the share — 8D is dragging, OTIF is poor, yet the total score was pulled back to 'above average' by the business score. The list expands not because there are too few indicators, but because the results fail to get into the decision-making process.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated on 2026-04-27\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>Performance goals are meant to drive market share, rectification, and exit when necessary, not to produce visually appealing radar charts.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Quality, delivery, collaboration, and compliance sub-items are visible; red lines must not be diluted by the total score.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Overdue rectifications must simultaneously enter the SQE and procurement views, and closing requires effective evidence.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Observation, limited quantity, supply suspension, and withdrawal should have triggering conditions, evidence attachments, and order constraints\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>First freeze category weights and red lines, and confirm that strategic materials have alternatives, then launch automatic scoring.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"雷达图好看-订单不敢砍\">The radar chart looks good, but I don't dare to cut the orders.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>At the quarterly supplier meeting, the projector showed four or five dimensions forming a beautiful polygon. Privately, the purchasing manager said: the ones truly brave enough to increase orders are still those three 'familiar' suppliers; the one with the most problems, because 'the line change cost is high' and 'the boss knows them,' still holds the main share. The SQE opens the overdue 8D list, and the planner opens the details of consistently late OTIF—three tables talking about the same supplier, yet the decision stops at 'let's keep observing.'\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The list of qualified suppliers is getting longer and fluctuating continuously, which usually is not because of 'insufficient indicators,' but because\u003Cstrong>The assessment results cannot change the range and share available for placing orders\u003C\u002Fstrong>If performance is only ranked without making decisions, the system is nothing more than an electronic version of the year-end ceremony.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"先问绩效要服务哪次决策\">First ask which decision the performance is supposed to serve\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Before implementing the scoring online, first clearly write down the actions that performance needs to drive:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Executives\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Evidence that needs to be seen\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>What will happen if you can't see\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Maintain or increase market share\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Stability of individual items, timely rectification and closure\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Insiders continue to take large volumes\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Limited \u002F Observation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Itemized breakdowns, repeated defects, continuous delivery failures\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The minutes stated a limit, but the system can still place a full order.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Supply Suspension Assessment\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Red line items, major quality\u002Fsafety issues, license expiration\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Verbal supply suspension, orders continue to be issued\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Exit \u002F Re-admit\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Decision records, alternative sourcing, archiving\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Just exited and manually created a file to bypass\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>If the organization only wants a 'score for the supplier to see,' there is no need for a complex model; if it wants to control directory inflation, the score must be able to reflect the cooperation status.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"分项与红线-总分是摘要-不是遮羞布\">Sub-items and red lines: the total score is a summary, not a cover-up\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>It is recommended to retain at least four subcategories and allow adjustment of category weights:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Quality\u003C\u002Fstrong>: Incoming material nonconformance rate, major defects, 8D repetition and overdue;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Delivery\u003C\u002Fstrong>: OTIF or line-level delivery compliance, delivery deviation (consistent with the scope of delivery topic);\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Collaboration\u003C\u002Fstrong>Order confirmation timeliness rate, secondary confirmation of changes, portal response;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Compliance\u003C\u002Fstrong>Certificates valid, agreement and factory inspection conclusion, risk labels.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Red line examples (after being categorized and written into the plan attachment): Major quality\u002Fsafety incidents → supply suspension assessment; license expiration → freeze new orders; repeated overdue similar 8D → enforce quantity limits; OTIF continuously below threshold → delivery rectification and set quota limit.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Business points and relationship points can exist, but\u003Cstrong>Cannot erase the red line\u003C\u002Fstrong>The dashboard by default displays sub-items and overdue queues, with the total score only serving as a summary. Procurement carries the share, SQE carries the 8D, and planning carries the material shortages — the regular meeting should address the same supplier, not each going through their own sheet.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"整改必须从质量侧走进采购可视\">Rectification must approach procurement visibility from the quality side.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Typical symptoms of the disconnect between performance and quality: 8D goes unused in the SQE folder, and the procurement quarterly rating is still given as 'Good.' We need to integrate the event flow into the evaluation:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\u003Cli>Incoming materials are non-conforming, deviations, 8D with deadlines and responsible parties;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Automatic upgrade upon overdue, procurement and SQE see the same disposal view;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Closing requires validity verification (small batch stability, reduction in repeated defects, etc.) and prohibits 'closing immediately after filling out the form'.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Overdue and repeated openings are counted in process performance and trigger limit rules.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>Access control addresses 'whether one can enter,' while performance addresses 'the share and retention after entering.' Observation period indicators should be of the same source as the above dimensions to avoid having one set for newcomers and another set for veterans. Attention can be given to deduction or payment configuration, but\u003Cstrong>Cannot use deductions to replace quality rectification\u003C\u002Fstrong>——The money has been deducted, but the root cause remains; next season the radar chart will still be misleading.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"淘汰难-往往难在没有备胎\">Eliminating is difficult, often because there is no backup.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>When the rules are strict but the strategic materials come from a single source, no one dares to execute an exit. Before implementing hard constraints online, at least do three things:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Alternative sourcing or safety stock strategy for strategic materials;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The limited period truly restricts new orders and shares, rather than just being written in the meeting minutes;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Re-entry after withdrawal should go through the formal process to prevent silent registration.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>Re-evaluation for recovery also requires evidence: rectification closure, small batch stability, and meeting observation period indicators. A 'recovery' without evidence is equivalent to telling the site that rules are negotiable.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The alternative list is not about adding a long string of names 'for backup but never placing orders.' At the very least, there should be a usable sourcing record: samples or factory audit conclusions are still valid, production capacity and delivery time can be met, and price master data can be activated. Otherwise, the suspension assessment will pass in the meeting but get stuck during execution, and next time no one will bring up withdrawal again. For monopolies or customer-designated suppliers, write 'cannot withdraw' into the category strategy, and instead use limited quantities, on-site presence, and stricter inspections, rather than pretending that general elimination rules apply.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"例会只拍四种结果\">The regular meeting only records four types of outcomes\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>It is recommended to compress the joint supplier\u002Fquality meeting into a decision-making meeting: after drilling down on overdue rectifications and OTIF sub-items on the Kanban, only output—maintain, limit, suspend supply evaluation, start alternatives. Decisions should be entered into the system status, and the first item next week should check whether it has been executed to an orderable scope. Colors and rankings can be kept, but if the weekly meeting is still debating 'which table is accurate,' it indicates that the events are not yet from a common source.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Limited execution requires spot checks: Whether new orders from limited suppliers during the limited period are restricted or need additional approval; whether the quota cap is written back to sourcing and order strategies. If orders can still be placed normally during the suspension assessment period, it indicates that the state machine is stopped at the reporting layer. After exiting and archiving, any re-admission must go through the admission or re-evaluation process again, and the reason for exit should be retained to prevent 'rebirth under a different code'.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Supply management solutions typically place access control, master data, licenses and risk tags, performance evaluation, and corrective elimination within the same lifecycle; quality collaboration displays incoming material nonconformities and 8D reports, with procurement and SQE sharing timelines. In JEDP-SRM, observation periods, red lines, and evidence are configurable and linked to shares\u002Fcorrective actions—the value lies in \"there is movement in the directory,\" not in radar chart animations. Process data should be drillable down to order lines, inspection batches, and correction sheets, with meeting discussions focused on evidence rather than impressions.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"权重-周期与-好看分-陷阱\">Weight, Cycle, and the 'Looks Score' Trap\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Different categories should have different weights: safety components should emphasize quality red lines, long-lead-time components should emphasize delivery and coordination, and compliance-sensitive components should emphasize licenses and certifications. The whole company uses a single weighting table, but breaking it down by item dilutes it into 'everything is important equals nothing is important.' In terms of cycle, monthly reviews focus on the process (overdue instances, breach counts), quarterly reviews focus on share and retention decisions; if only done at year-end, corrective actions are always half a step behind.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Be wary of three types of 'good-looking scores': business scores that are too high, masking quality; extremely small sample sizes yet giving full marks; supplier self-assessments and internal data each calculated separately but then averaged. Scoring rules should be announced after being finalized, and any changes should follow a controlled process; otherwise, suppliers may think the rules are negotiable, reducing their motivation to make improvements.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Event-driven scoring is harder to falsify than manual end-of-year scoring: material nonconformities, overdue 8Ds, OTIF failures, and expired certifications are recorded in the process ledger as they occur. Manual score adjustments can have a channel, but they must include the reason, the approver, and a validity period; if score adjustments become the default, the itemized score board will revert to being decorative. When the observation period for a new supplier ends, use the same set of scores to decide 'confirmation \u002F observation extension \u002F exit,' and do not invent a separate, more lenient scoring system.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"哪些场景先别强上淘汰\">In which situations should you not force elimination first\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Single source of supply with no alternative plan: first prepare a backup, then discuss a hard exit;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Quality and delivery incidents are still in the form: handle the incidents first, then calculate the score automatically;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Treating performance merely as a punitive tool, without providing guidance or a review path: suppliers will conceal problems;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Traders and manufacturers use the same weight: distortion in individual items;\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The group's shared directory does not review the scope of subsidiaries: exits are placed in Company A and Company B orders still.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>First, freeze the category weights and red-line items, run a trial with one or two categories to see if the 'limits are really enforceable,' and then expand to automatic scoring and the full catalog. Over the past year, there have been zero exits and zero limits in the catalog, yet quality fluctuations remain, indicating that performance is still at the display level—executing a real-limited case first is more convincing than launching ten dimensions at once. Guidance and punishment must go hand in hand: if you punish without helping, suppliers will hide problems; if you only help without limiting, the catalog will continue to expand.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"怎么继续\">What to do next\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Export two lists this week: Top overdue rectifications, and suppliers with poor OTIF sub-scores but medium to high overall scores. Bring them to the joint meeting of Purchasing and SQE, and for each name, only record one action (maintain \u002F limit \u002F evaluate for suspension \u002F initiate backup), and check whether the system's orderable range is consistent within three days.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>SRM Supply Solution: Performance and Rectification Elimination\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Supplier Access and Risk Label\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Incoming Material Quality and Supplier Closed Loop\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>How is OTIF measured at the line level for performance?\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=\"#雷达图好看-订单不敢砍\">The radar chart looks good, but I don't dare to cut the orders.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#先问绩效要服务哪次决策\">First ask which decision the performance is supposed to serve\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#分项与红线-总分是摘要-不是遮羞布\">Sub-items and red lines: the total score is a summary, not a cover-up\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#整改必须从质量侧走进采购可视\">Rectification must approach procurement visibility from the quality side.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#淘汰难-往往难在没有备胎\">Eliminating is difficult, often because there is no backup.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#例会只拍四种结果\">The regular meeting only records four types of outcomes\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#权重-周期与-好看分-陷阱\">Weight, Cycle, and the 'Looks Score' Trap\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#哪些场景先别强上淘汰\">In which situations should you not force elimination 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>How often is it appropriate to evaluate performance?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Key categories recommend monthly process data and quarterly decisions. There is only one evaluation at the end of the year, making rectification and share adjustments inevitably delayed.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can an order be directly canceled due to poor performance?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Generally, rectification and limits come first; red-line items may trigger a supply suspension assessment. Cancellation or withdrawal must retain decision evidence and alternative plans.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How to coordinate with the onboarding of new suppliers?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Whether the access solution can enter or not; the share and retention after the performance is resolved. The observation period metrics should be homologous to the performance dimension.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How to evaluate OTIF being poor but quality being very good?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Look at it item by item. Poor delivery should trigger delivery rectification and a share ceiling, and should not be smoothed out by the total score.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can the system automatically reduce the quota?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It can indicate overdue and red line risks; share and elimination decisions must go through procurement decision-making and process approval to avoid \"algorithms taking the blame for humans.\"\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\">\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>Approved vendor lists keep growing? Onboarding must block unacceptable risk first\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>Directory expansion has occurred, but those willing to increase volume have not, mainly because access only involved completing registration. Data, capability, business, and the observation period need to be unlocked in sequence for volume increase; crossing the red line is not allowed for entry into the directory, and the evidence chain is more important than the total score. …\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-03-12 · ~9 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">QMS · Quality\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>Incoming material inspection is not the end point of the quality department, but the starting point of supplier quality management. From pending inspections, concession disputes, verbal corrections to 'evaluation is useless', breaking down tasks into triggers, determining separation, transmitting anomalies, and performance feedback in four places...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-05-21 · ~10 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">SRM · Supplier\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Board says 96% on time but the line still shorts—write OTIF as verifiable rules first\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>The on-time delivery rate being achieved is inflated, mostly because the numerator and denominator have been redefined. Line-level OTIF, the commitment date benchmark, the early window, and nonconformities not counted in full quantity, and being sourced the same as order confirmation, receipt, and incoming material judgment, only then does the ranking qualify for a share…\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-06-18 · ~8 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990752]