Automotive: how it works and what to require
Automotive procurement runs against launch timing, tiered suppliers and part approval evidence. Proconomy governs supplier qualification, APQP and PPAP coordination, SCAR and 8D corrective action and change control on the same platform as sourcing and purchasing, so quality standing reaches the commercial decision and evidence stays retrievable.
Launch dates do not move. Everything else has to.
Direct and indirect side by side, a tiered supply base, and programme dates that are fixed.
Launch and NPI
- Sourcing against a drawing and programme date
- Supplier capability and capacity assessment
- Tooling, NRE and capital contribution
- APQP milestone tracking per programme
- PPAP submission and level review
- Run-at-rate before start of production
Serial supply
- Schedule call-offs against framework agreements
- Capacity commitments by period
- Dual-source volume allocation
- Price mechanisms and index reviews
- Obsolescence and last-time-buy
- Delivery performance against schedule
Quality in the loop
- Line rejection at incoming inspection
- SCAR and 8D with staged evidence
- Containment review before investigation
- Effectiveness verification after implementation
- Warranty claims traced to a supplier
- Repeat issues escalating to development
Change control
- Engineering change requiring re-sourcing
- Supplier process or material change
- Tier-two change your tier-one did not report
- Site or equipment relocation
- Sub-supplier substitution
- Deviation and concession requests
Seven automotive mechanisms. APQP, PPAP, SCAR, 8D.
What the platform actually holds, and what stays a human quality judgement.
| Mechanism | What it has to do |
|---|---|
| APQP milestone tracking | Milestones held against the programme plan and visible to everyone on it, rather than in one engineer's spreadsheet. |
| PPAP submission management | Submission level, required evidence, review outcome and the drawing revision it was assessed against, retained per part and supplier. |
| SCAR and 8D as staged workflows | Each discipline carries required evidence, a deadline and a named owner. Containment and root-cause acceptance are human decisions that never auto-pass. |
| Change notification assessment | Supplier and component changes routed to procurement, quality and engineering for assessment before the change takes effect. |
| Tiered qualification | Different requirements by tier, commodity and plant, with approval scope defined per entity rather than assumed group-wide. |
| Quality standing in the award | Open corrective actions and delivery performance visible to the person deciding the next programme award. |
| Decision traceability per part | The rule that applied, the person who approved and the evidence submitted, retained per supplier, part and programme. |
A description of what the practice requires, not a feature list.
Five demonstrations. Not a prepared scenario.
Let a corrective action go overdue in the session and watch what happens.
- Issue a SCAR during the session and let it go overdue. Watch what happens without a person.
- Show a PPAP submission being assessed against a superseded drawing, and what the system does about it.
- Ask how a tier-two process change reaches you when your tier-one did not notify it.
- Show a supplier's open quality position appearing inside a sourcing award decision.
- Ask what happens at the qualification gate when a programme date is at risk.
Definitions. Asked and answered.
No. Proconomy supports configurable workflows associated with supplier qualification, documentation, corrective action and change control. Certification and compliance remain the responsibility of your organisation and its auditors.
Submission requirements, milestones and owners are configured per programme and supplier. Agents chase outstanding elements and escalate overdue work; acceptance of each submission is a human quality decision that is recorded.
Yes, under a rule you configure. Standing can restrict invitation, require an authorised exception or simply appear alongside the commercial comparison so the decision-maker sees it.
Supplier and component change notifications open a governed assessment routed to procurement, quality and engineering owners. Acceptance and any re-qualification requirement are human decisions with named approvers.
No. Group policy defines what must be common — qualification standards, corrective action stages, audit retention. Thresholds, approvers and local supplier arrangements are configured per plant and entity.
Yes. Automotive groups run direct, indirect and MRO procurement on the same platform, with different policies and buying routes applied to each.
IATF 16949 is the automotive quality management system standard, built on ISO 9001 with additional automotive-specific requirements covering product safety, risk management, supplier development and traceability. It governs the organisation's quality system, not the software it uses.
PPAP submission levels define how much evidence a supplier must provide with a part approval, from level 1 (warrant only) to level 5 (full documentation reviewed at the supplier site). The level is set by the customer according to part risk and supplier history.
Advanced product quality planning is a phased framework for taking a new part from concept to production, with defined milestones ensuring quality requirements are established and demonstrated before launch rather than discovered afterwards.
A tier-one supplier supplies directly to the vehicle manufacturer. Tier two supplies the tier one, and so on down the chain. Risk concentrates below tier one because the relationship is indirect and disclosure is commercial rather than contractual.