Workflow demonstration
Supplier corrective action
In short
A quality event opens a corrective action request carrying the required stages, evidence and deadlines. Quality reviews containment, agents chase outstanding evidence and escalate overdue work, a quality specialist approves closure, and the outcome updates supplier standing and sourcing eligibility.
Trigger
A batch rejection at incoming inspection.
Relevant audience
Supplier quality, supplier management and category managers
Stage by stage. With the control that applies.
-
Stage 1 — TriggerTriggerA quality event is raisedThe rejection is recorded against the part, supplier and plant, with severity classified by rule.
- What stays in control
- Severity determines the required response and timescale.
- Outcome
- The issue enters a governed process immediately.
-
Stage 2 — Agent actionAgent actionThe corrective action request is issuedThe supplier receives the issue, the required 8D stages, the evidence expected and the deadlines.
- What stays in control
- The response format follows your quality system.
- Outcome
- The supplier knows what closure requires.
-
Stage 3 — Human decisionHuman decisionQuality reviews containmentSorting, screening and interim measures are assessed before investigation continues.
- What stays in control
- Containment adequacy is never an automated pass.
- Outcome
- Production risk is addressed first.
-
Stage 4 — Agent actionAgent actionOutstanding evidence is chased and escalatedMissing stages are followed up; overdue work escalates to the supplier quality engineer and account owner.
- What stays in control
- Escalation timings are configured by severity.
- Outcome
- Issues stop stalling for want of a reminder.
-
Stage 5 — Human decisionHuman decisionQuality approves closureRoot cause, corrective action and verification of effectiveness are accepted.
- What stays in control
- Closure authority sits with named quality roles.
- Outcome
- Closure means resolved, not answered.
-
Stage 6 — System updateSystem updatedSupplier standing is updatedThe scorecard, supplier status and any sourcing restriction reflect the outcome.
- What stays in control
- Whether standing restricts invitation is a configured rule.
- Outcome
- Quality evidence enters the next commercial decision.
-
Stage 7 — Audit historyRecordedThe evidence pack is retainedThe event, submissions, reviews, decisions and closure remain linked to the supplier and part.
- What stays in control
- Retrieval is a search rather than a reconstruction.
- Outcome
- Audit readiness without a scramble.
Six questions. Answered the same way every time.
Every Proconomy workflow demonstration answers the same six questions, so you can set one workflow against another and against how it runs today.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What triggered the workflow? | A batch rejection at incoming inspection. |
| What did the agent do? | Issued the corrective action request with required stages, chased outstanding evidence and escalated overdue work. |
| What rule permitted it? | Severity classification rules determining the required response, evidence and escalation timings. |
| What returned to a person? | Containment adequacy assessment and the closure decision, both with named quality authority. |
| What system was updated? | The supplier quality history, scorecard and any resulting sourcing eligibility restriction. |
| What outcome changed? | Faster closure, better evidence and stronger supplier accountability. |
What changes as a result. Named, not implied.
- Faster containment and closure.
- Better evidence and clearer accountability.
- Lower recurrence risk.
- Quality standing available to the commercial decision.
Request interpreted and classified
Missing equipment reference requested
Requester supplied reference GB-4417
Buying policy selected contracted purchase
Approved within delegated authority
Purchase order written back to ERP
How this runs today. Mostly coordination, not judgement.
What happens between the need and the outcome, in most groups.
- The issue is raised by email
- With a description, an expectation and no defined stages.
- Containment is accepted informally
- In a call or a reply, without a recorded decision or evidence.
- Root cause is promised
- And then the thread goes quiet, usually around D4.
- Nobody chases for eleven days
- Because chasing is somebody's fourth priority.
- Effectiveness is rarely verified
- The action closes when the immediate pain stops rather than when the fix is proven.
- The supplier bids on the next programme
- With the open action invisible to the person deciding the award.
Six things to watch for.|In any vendor session.
- Issue a corrective action and let it go overdue during the session. Watch what happens without a person.
- Try to pass containment review automatically. It should not be possible.
- Ask to see the supplier's open quality position inside a sourcing award decision.
- Ask what evidence is required at each stage and who defined it.
- Ask how a repeat issue escalates to supplier development.
- Request the corrective action history for a supplier as an auditor would.
Four things to bring.|Yours, not ours.
- One corrective action that stalled, and where.
- Your required response format and stage definitions.
- A supplier with a repeat issue and the award history that followed.
- Whoever accepts containment and root cause.
Bring one real workflow. We will run it, exceptions included.
These sequences describe the operating model. A live demonstration on your own process shows it, including the point where the software stops and asks a person.
Someone from client success replies, not a sales sequence. If we are not a fit we will say so on the first call.
Not ready to talk to anyone?
Fair enough. Both of these work without giving us your email.