AI Agents
Design-time speeds up inspection forms and nonconformance and CAPA flows. Runtime can query and complete reviews within that person's own permissions through the API; it does not close a CAPA directly and does not change the judgment.
Integrate inspections, nonconformities, CAPA, and system documents into an auditable quality closed loop—dynamic, preventive, and data-driven, rather than 'recording after the fact'
Points are rarely lost in audits because "things weren't done," but more often because "things were done but evidence couldn't be provided." JEDP-QMS is designed for manufacturing environments with intensive compliance requirements such as IATF 16949 / ISO 9001, covering full-process inspections from IQC / IPQC / OQC, document and change control, nonconformance handling and CAPA, supplier quality collaboration, and quality dashboards, enabling quality, production, purchasing, and suppliers to collaborate under the same standards for defects and corrective actions.
Records must drive disposition, not only attach files: inspection tasks can trigger from receipt or operation; NCR has deadline and escalation; CAPA close needs implementation, effectiveness proof, and document sync. Links SRM incoming, MES process, WMS lot hold; multi-plant quality can isolate under multi-tenant or org permissions.
The table lists the modules under the six capabilities, and how a rule advances the next document. Approval, judgment, and write-off stay with a person.
| Core Capabilities | Modules in scope | Rule advance |
|---|---|---|
| End-to-end Inspection | Incoming, in-process, and outgoing inspection, control plans, and reports | Receipt or the operation creates the inspection task with the standard. The report follows the result. |
| Document Control & Compliance | Controlled documents and training sign-off; FMEA, MSA, SPC, and PPAP only for the agreed scope | The document version and training acknowledgement sit on the same record. |
| Nonconformance & Quarantine | Rework, scrap, concession, quarantine, return, and repair | The disposition writes back hold or release, so a defect cannot be picked. |
| CAPA / 8D | Complaints, 8D, and effectiveness checks | Overdue items escalate. Closing still needs the action, the verification, and the document update. The case does not close by itself. |
| Supplier Quality | Incoming failures can open supplier corrective action and affect performance | An incoming failure is pushed to the supplier. Overdue action can affect performance. |
| Quality Dashboard | First-pass yield, Pareto, CAPA status, and test progress | Indicators roll up from inspection and exception documents, not from a separate monthly sheet. |
Design-time speeds up inspection forms and nonconformance and CAPA flows. Runtime can query and complete reviews within that person's own permissions through the API; it does not close a CAPA directly and does not change the judgment.
Service morning meetings and management reviews on first-pass yield, defect Pareto, overdue corrective actions, and CAPA status; indicators are derived from inspection/abnormal documents to reduce 'creating a separate quality monthly report'.
Multi-site, multi-language quality forms, defect descriptions, and supplier rectification portals can enable tenant languages; fallback for missing translations ensures that overseas factories and suppliers collaborate under the same defect standards.
The group's multi-plant quality data operates in isolation, with permissions inherited according to the organization; this supports both independent operation of individual plants and aggregation on the group's quality dashboard (only within the authorized scope), preventing incorrect standard modifications across plants.
QMS has the right to the evidence of quality incidents, disposition conclusions, CAPA, and controlled documents; ERP/MES/WMS can trigger inspection or status feedback, but it is not advisable for each to separately establish a ‘non-formal quality ledger’.
Touchpoints: SRM for incoming nonconformance to supplier action, MES for in-process inspection and isolation, WMS for lot and bin hold and release. Name the system of record for those three write-backs before building the quality board.
| Breakpoint | Common cause | Control lever |
|---|---|---|
| The review requires the file version to match the on-site version. | The document is uncontrolled or the training is not associated | System Document Version + Training/Receipt Record |
| IQC qualified but the warehouse is still frozen | Inspection conclusion not written back to WMS | Release/Freeze Status Integration + Failure Alert |
| Customer complaints repeatedly occur without CAPA | 8D completed without validity verification | CAPA Closure Criteria + Verification Evidence |
| Measuring tools are still being used after expiration | Calibration plan not pushed | Measurement Ledger + Overdue Lock |
| Process defects are only in the MES form | IPQC has not entered the QMS evidence chain | Process inspection standards are homologous, backwriting division of labor |
| Incoming defective materials did not prompt the supplier to make corrections | SRM quality collaboration not connected | Nonconforming Item → Supplier 8D View |
| Offline signatures on lab reports are difficult to trace | The testing process has not been digitized | Laboratory Center Approval Chain + Report Archiving |
Primary Responsibility:QMS has inspection standards and control plans, inspection/test records, measurement calibration evidence, handling of nonconformities and customer complaints, CAPA/8D, system documents and audit records; ERP retains material and inventory accounts, WMS/MES/SRM receives status updates for release/freeze/correction.
Integration Direction (Typical):PLM → Drawings and inspection standards; QMS → WMS pushes IQC/OQC tasks and release/freeze conclusions (WMS executes inventory status); MES ↔ IPQC triggers and writes back process conclusions (standards/CAPA still mainly in QMS); QMS → SRM pushes incoming material nonconformities and 8D; ERP ← related statuses such as returns/scrap. Any quality record should be traceable to the reference documents, approvers, and training execution within a few minutes.
The persuasiveness of the quality plan comes from the evidence-gathering pathway; it can be compared and combined with manufacturing and supply cases to define boundaries.
For common questions about the capabilities on this page, take a look here first; if you still have questions, you can contact us.
Yes. Controlled-document versions, training, inspection records, and CAPA should be evidence under one business key. Audits sample the evidence chain, not whether a form exists. FMEA / MSA / SPC / PPAP enable by scope and sync with manufacturing data.
Yes. IQC / IPQC / OQC share standards and the defect library, linked to gauge calibration. If standards are not frozen or multiple defect libraries coexist, narrow the scope before forcing a plant-wide go-live.
Nonconformances and complaints follow CAPA / 8D: implementation and effectiveness verification are both required to close—filling the form is not enough. QRQC can enable by scope. A complaint should drill to lot, inspection, and CAPA status.
Test requests, records, reports, and equipment checks share one progress and approval path. Lab conclusions must hang back onto inspection / nonconformance documents. If the lab module is not purchased, it is not a mandatory acceptance item.
Complaint attribution, open cases, and quality trends should take numbers from the same inspection / exception documents. Boards publish only defined metrics—no parallel temporary Excel and system figures.