[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":85},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:product\u002Fqms:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":84},"product\u002Fqms","JEDP-QMS Quality Management System - JEDP Digital Platform","JEDP-QMS Quality Management System: full-process IQC \u002F IPQC \u002F OQC inspection, documents and compliance, CAPA closed loop and quality dashboards, supporting IATF 16949 and ISO 9001 system audits.","JEDP, QMS, Quality Management, Digital Platform, Lang Bowan","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-products","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fqms-slide6.webp",[13,30,58],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"itemListElement":16},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","BreadcrumbList",[17,22,26],{"@type":18,"position":19,"name":20,"item":21},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":18,"position":23,"name":24,"item":25},2,"Products","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fproducts",{"@type":18,"position":27,"name":28,"item":29},3,"JEDP-QMS Quality Management","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fproduct\u002Fqms",{"@context":14,"@type":31,"@id":32,"name":28,"applicationCategory":33,"applicationSubCategory":34,"operatingSystem":35,"inLanguage":36,"description":6,"url":29,"provider":40,"isPartOf":42,"offers":44,"featureList":51},"SoftwareApplication","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fproduct\u002Fqms#software","BusinessApplication","Quality Management System","Web (browser access; SaaS multi-tenant, private deployment assessed by scenario)",[37,38,39],"zh-CN","zh-TW","en",{"@id":41},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":43},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#software",{"@type":45,"url":46,"availability":47,"priceSpecification":48},"Offer","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fcontact?from=qms","https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org\u002FInStock",{"@type":49,"priceCurrency":50},"PriceSpecification","CNY",[52,53,54,55,56,57],"End-to-end Inspection: IQC \u002F IPQC (first article, in-process inspection, sampling inspection) \u002F OQC share standards, sampling, and defect libraries. Tasks can be triggered by receiving or process operations, and the results are written back to purchase, production, and batch status, allowing inspection to enter the execution chain rather than being recorded afterward.","Document Control & Compliance: Controlled documents, changes, and training are executed with traceability, and the versions are consistent with those on site. The goal is to complete audit evidence collection within minutes, rather than relying on cloud drive-style file modules and chat screenshots.","Nonconformance & Quarantine: Non-conforming reviews support rework\u002Fscrap\u002Fconcession\u002Fisolation and other handling, and are linked with batch, storage location, and work order status to prevent defects from continuing to circulate or being picked for shipping.","CAPA \u002F 8D Closed Loop: Problem, cause, measures, effectiveness verification, and document updates are all managed in the same chain. The closure criteria can be configured (including verification requirements) to prevent 'filling out a form counts as closure,' which could artificially inflate the closure rate.","Supplier Quality: Material issues automatically or semi-automatically go into supplier rectification; overdue rectification can be linked to performance, access\u002Fquota, allowing SQE and procurement to see the same risks, rather than quality internally spinning in circles.","Quality Dashboards & Alerts: Service morning meetings and management reviews for first-pass yield, Pareto of defects, overdue abnormalities, and CAPA status; SPC and other alerts are activated according to scenarios, with metric criteria originating from the same source as inspection\u002Fabnormality documents.",{"@context":14,"@type":59,"@id":60,"mainEntity":61},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fproduct\u002Fqms#faq",[62,68,72,76,80],{"@type":63,"name":64,"acceptedAnswer":65},"Question","Does JEDP-QMS support IATF 16949 system audits?",{"@type":66,"text":67},"Answer","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 \u002F MSA \u002F SPC \u002F PPAP enable by scope and sync with manufacturing data.",{"@type":63,"name":69,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Can incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and outgoing inspection be managed in one system?",{"@type":66,"text":71},"Yes. IQC \u002F IPQC \u002F 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.",{"@type":63,"name":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"How can non-conforming products and customer complaints achieve a closed loop and traceability?",{"@type":66,"text":75},"Nonconformances and complaints follow CAPA \u002F 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.",{"@type":63,"name":77,"acceptedAnswer":78},"How to manage laboratory and test data?",{"@type":66,"text":79},"Test requests, records, reports, and equipment checks share one progress and approval path. Lab conclusions must hang back onto inspection \u002F nonconformance documents. If the lab module is not purchased, it is not a mandatory acceptance item.",{"@type":63,"name":81,"acceptedAnswer":82},"What can the quality dashboard show to management?",{"@type":66,"text":83},"Complaint attribution, open cases, and quality trends should take numbers from the same inspection \u002F exception documents. Boards publish only defined metrics—no parallel temporary Excel and system figures.","\u003Csection class=\"product-detail-section page-section\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-container\">      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fproducts\">Products\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>QMS\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"product-detail\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-header\">\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-icon\">\u003Ci class=\"fas fa-clipboard-check\">\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv>\n            \u003Ch1>JEDP-QMS Quality Management\u003C\u002Fh1>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-subtitle\">Integrate inspections, nonconformities, CAPA, and system documents into an auditable quality closed loop—dynamic, preventive, and data-driven, rather than 'recording after the fact'\u003C\u002Fp>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-content\">\n                    \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Solution Positioning\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">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 \u002F ISO 9001, covering full-process inspections from IQC \u002F IPQC \u002F 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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Where It Fits\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cul class=\"pain-list\">\n              \u003Cli>Inspections rely on forms and verbal communication, the standards and defect databases for incoming materials, processes, and finished products are inconsistent, data cannot drive improvements, and audits can only record things retrospectively.\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Nonconforming items are issued without a defined deadline or upgrade, and the rework\u002Fscrap\u002Fquarantine status is disconnected from inventory and work orders, allowing defects to potentially continue circulating.\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>CAPA \u002F 8D closure definitions are vague, the closure rate looks good but lacks effectiveness verification and document synchronization, and similar problems occur repeatedly.\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>The system documents, training, and on-site execution versions are inconsistent. Auditing for evidence requires checking multiple cloud drives and chat records, which is time-consuming and prone to losing points.\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Core Process\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Col class=\"process-flow-steps\">\n              \u003Cli>Standards & Documents\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Incoming \u002F In-process \u002F Final Inspection\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Nonconformance Handling\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>CAPA Improvement\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Audit Evidence\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Fol>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Core Capabilities\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cul class=\"capability-list\">\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>End-to-end Inspection\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>IQC \u002F IPQC (first article, in-process inspection, sampling inspection) \u002F OQC share standards, sampling, and defect libraries. Tasks can be triggered by receiving or process operations, and the results are written back to purchase, production, and batch status, allowing inspection to enter the execution chain rather than being recorded afterward.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Document Control & Compliance\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>Controlled documents, changes, and training stay on record, and the version matches the shop floor. Audit evidence should be available in minutes. FMEA, MSA, SPC, and PPAP are enabled only for the agreed scope.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Nonconformance & Quarantine\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>Non-conforming reviews support rework\u002Fscrap\u002Fconcession\u002Fisolation and other handling, and are linked with batch, storage location, and work order status to prevent defects from continuing to circulate or being picked for shipping.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>CAPA \u002F 8D Closed Loop\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>Problem, cause, measures, effectiveness verification, and document updates are all managed in the same chain. The closure criteria can be configured (including verification requirements) to prevent 'filling out a form counts as closure,' which could artificially inflate the closure rate.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Supplier Quality\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>Material issues automatically or semi-automatically go into supplier rectification; overdue rectification can be linked to performance, access\u002Fquota, allowing SQE and procurement to see the same risks, rather than quality internally spinning in circles.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Quality Dashboards & Alerts\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan>Service morning meetings and management reviews for first-pass yield, Pareto of defects, overdue abnormalities, and CAPA status; SPC and other alerts are activated according to scenarios, with metric criteria originating from the same source as inspection\u002Fabnormality documents.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Scope of functions\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Core Capabilities\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Modules in scope\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Rule advance\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>End-to-end Inspection\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Incoming, in-process, and outgoing inspection, control plans, and reports\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Receipt or the operation creates the inspection task with the standard. The report follows the result.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Document Control & Compliance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Controlled documents and training sign-off; FMEA, MSA, SPC, and PPAP only for the agreed scope\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The document version and training acknowledgement sit on the same record.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Nonconformance & Quarantine\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Rework, scrap, concession, quarantine, return, and repair\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The disposition writes back hold or release, so a defect cannot be picked.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>CAPA \u002F 8D\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Complaints, 8D, and effectiveness checks\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Overdue items escalate. Closing still needs the action, the verification, and the document update. The case does not close by itself.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Supplier Quality\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Incoming failures can open supplier corrective action and affect performance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>An incoming failure is pushed to the supplier. Overdue action can affect performance.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Quality Dashboard\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>First-pass yield, Pareto, CAPA status, and test progress\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Indicators roll up from inspection and exception documents, not from a separate monthly sheet.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">Solution Snapshot\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Platform Boost\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"platform-boost\">\n              \u003Carticle>\u003Ch3>AI Agents\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003C\u002Farticle>\n              \u003Carticle>\u003Ch3>Reports and dashboards\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp>Service morning meetings and management reviews on first-pass yield, defect Pareto, overdue corrective actions, and CAPA status; indicators are derived from inspection\u002Fabnormal documents to reduce 'creating a separate quality monthly report'.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003C\u002Farticle>\n              \u003Carticle>\u003Ch3>Multi-language\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003C\u002Farticle>\n              \u003Carticle>\u003Ch3>Multi-tenant\u003C\u002Fh3>\u003Cp>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.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003C\u002Farticle>\n            \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n                              \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Boundaries & Composition\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">QMS has the right to the evidence of quality incidents, disposition conclusions, CAPA, and controlled documents; ERP\u002FMES\u002FWMS can trigger inspection or status feedback, but it is not advisable for each to separately establish a ‘non-formal quality ledger’.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C!-- product-depth:BEGIN -->\n\u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n\n            \n            \n            \u003Ch2>Typical breakpoints\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Breakpoint\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common cause\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Control lever\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>The review requires the file version to match the on-site version.\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The document is uncontrolled or the training is not associated\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>System Document Version + Training\u002FReceipt Record\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>IQC qualified but the warehouse is still frozen\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Inspection conclusion not written back to WMS\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Release\u002FFreeze Status Integration + Failure Alert\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Customer complaints repeatedly occur without CAPA\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>8D completed without validity verification\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>CAPA Closure Criteria + Verification Evidence\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Measuring tools are still being used after expiration\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Calibration plan not pushed\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Measurement Ledger + Overdue Lock\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Process defects are only in the MES form\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>IPQC has not entered the QMS evidence chain\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Process inspection standards are homologous, backwriting division of labor\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Incoming defective materials did not prompt the supplier to make corrections\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>SRM quality collaboration not connected\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Nonconforming Item → Supplier 8D View\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Offline signatures on lab reports are difficult to trace\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The testing process has not been digitized\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Laboratory Center Approval Chain + Report Archiving\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch2>Responsibility and Integration\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">\u003Cstrong>Primary Responsibility:\u003C\u002Fstrong>QMS has inspection standards and control plans, inspection\u002Ftest records, measurement calibration evidence, handling of nonconformities and customer complaints, CAPA\u002F8D, system documents and audit records; ERP retains material and inventory accounts, WMS\u002FMES\u002FSRM receives status updates for release\u002Ffreeze\u002Fcorrection.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">\u003Cstrong>Integration Direction (Typical):\u003C\u002Fstrong>PLM → Drawings and inspection standards; QMS → WMS pushes IQC\u002FOQC tasks and release\u002Ffreeze conclusions (WMS executes inventory status); MES ↔ IPQC triggers and writes back process conclusions (standards\u002FCAPA still mainly in QMS); QMS → SRM pushes incoming material nonconformities and 8D; ERP ← related statuses such as returns\u002Fscrap. Any quality record should be traceable to the reference documents, approvers, and training execution within a few minutes.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Ch2>Promote phased implementation and acceptance\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cul class=\"accept-list\">\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Phase One (Standards and IQC)\u003C\u002Fstrong>: Inspection items, control plans, IQC online operations and reports; metrology ledger and calibration plans; joint debugging with WMS receipt freezing\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Phase II (Process and Nonconformance)\u003C\u002Fstrong>: IPQC\u002FOQC, QRQC, rework and repair, and 8D; coordinate inspection responsibilities with MES workstations; collaborate on incoming material defects with SRM\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Phase Three (System and Customer Complaints)\u003C\u002Fstrong>: Document control, internal audit\u002Fmanagement review, customer complaint CAPA closure, R&D quality (FMEA\u002FPPAP\u002FSPC by scope); audit sampling package approved\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>The overdue rate of abnormal orders and the rate of repeated issues can be counted. CAPA closure must include effectiveness verification, not just the end of the process.\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>The approval chain for the experimental center reports and the rules for the laboratory seal can be demonstrated, and the test progress can be checked in real time.\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n            \u003Ch2>When not to apply\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cul class=\"pain-list\">\n              \u003Cli>Expect QMS to replace MES for dispatching and reporting—process execution and collection still in MES, QMS manages standards and evidence\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>No documented controlled practices, inspection standards rely on individual Excel sheets — basic data should be frozen before launching inspections\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Require all SPC to be in MES while system analysis is not in QMS — need to upfront define the scope of SPC and data sources\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Customer complaints and CAPA are only archived in forms, without effectiveness verification — not in compliance with IATF\u002FISO closed-loop requirements\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \n          \n          \u003C!-- product-depth:END -->\n\n\u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\">\n            \u003Ch2>Related Practices\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cp class=\"detail-lead\">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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cul class=\"related-cases\">\n              \u003Cli>Precision manufacturing: incoming inspection through complaint closure\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Assembly Manufacturing: Process Inspection and MES Division of Labor\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Product: MES process inspection trigger and conclusion feedback (standard\u002FCAPA still in QMS)\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>IATF 16949 digitization: six audit failure points—and how a QMS should catch them\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Resource: IATF16949 Digitization Self-Checklist\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n                                                                                                                                            \u003C!-- related-insights:BEGIN -->\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"detail-section\" id=\"related-insights\">\n            \u003Ch2>Related insights\u003C\u002Fh2>\n            \u003Cul class=\"related-cases\">\n              \u003Cli>Nobody trusts a 98% CAPA closure rate—define “closed” as three verifiable conditions\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>IQC and supplier quality as two skins—weld the loop at four nodes\u003C\u002Fli>\n              \u003Cli>Overdue gauges still in use? Block calibration status at inspection submit\u003C\u002Fli>\n            \u003C\u002Ful>\n            \u003Cp class=\"related-more\">\u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Browse all insights\u003C\u002Fa> · \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#selftest\">Take an online self-test\u003C\u002Fa> · \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#kits\">Download kits\u003C\u002Fa> · \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#demo\">Book a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C!-- related-insights:END -->\n          \u003Cdiv class=\"product-detail-cta scroll-reveal\">\n            \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fproducts\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Back to product solutions\u003C\u002Fa>\n            \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Take a self-test\u003C\u002Fa>\n            \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#kits\" class=\"btn btn-ghost\">Download kits\u003C\u002Fa>\n            \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources?from=qms#demo\" class=\"btn btn-ghost\">Book a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n            \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=qms\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n  \u003C!-- GEO:faq-visible:BEGIN · 由 scripts\u002Finject_geo.py 生成，请勿手改 -->\n  \u003Csection class=\"contact-faq page-section\" id=\"faq\">\n    \u003Ch2 class=\"section-title\">FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n    \u003Cp class=\"section-subtitle\">For common questions about the capabilities on this page, take a look here first; if you still have questions, you can contact us.\u003C\u002Fp>\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>Does JEDP-QMS support IATF 16949 system audits?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>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 \u002F MSA \u002F SPC \u002F PPAP enable by scope and sync with manufacturing data.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Can incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and outgoing inspection be managed in one system?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes. IQC \u002F IPQC \u002F 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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How can non-conforming products and customer complaints achieve a closed loop and traceability?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Nonconformances and complaints follow CAPA \u002F 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.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How to manage laboratory and test data?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Test requests, records, reports, and equipment checks share one progress and approval path. Lab conclusions must hang back onto inspection \u002F nonconformance documents. If the lab module is not purchased, it is not a mandatory acceptance item.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>What can the quality dashboard show to management?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Complaint attribution, open cases, and quality trends should take numbers from the same inspection \u002F exception documents. Boards publish only defined metrics—no parallel temporary Excel and system figures.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Fsection>\n  \u003C!-- GEO:faq-visible:END -->\n\n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \u003C!-- GEO:software-app:BEGIN · 由 scripts\u002Finject_geo.py 生成，请勿手改 -->\n  \n  \u003C!-- GEO:software-app:END -->\n  \u003C!-- GEO:faq:BEGIN · 由 scripts\u002Finject_geo.py 生成，请勿手改 -->\n  \n  \u003C!-- GEO:faq:END -->",1793937990197]