| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The mere fact that a purchase order has been registered does not make it possible to conclude that production can take place on the required date. The supplier’s delivery response, expected receipt and quality verification, and product change conditions must be compared together. The CMC-SCM proposal focuses on connecting post-order execution information with internal planning.
Based on requirements and shortage dates calculated in MPS and MRP, purchasing determines what needs to be adjusted. If the supplier’s response changes, identify the affected production orders and agree on the responsible person and approval conditions for alternative purchasing, split deliveries, or plan changes.
Distinguish the roles of WSP change responses and SCM purchasing tasks. Maintain the direct change-transfer flow between PLM and WSP, while determining the scope of additional links, such as verifying change validity when placing purchase orders, during implementation planning.
When reviewing “Connect supply-chain commitments to production readiness” in this chapter, read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality should verify not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the preceding stage and the status passed to the next stage.
| Status | Purchasing action | Plan verification |
|---|---|---|
| No response | Request commitment | Mark as a provisional risk |
| Delay commitment | Discuss split delivery or alternatives | Review affected orders |
| Expected receipt | Compare quantity and LOT | Available-for-use date after inspection |
| Partial receipt | Verify remaining quantity and renewed commitment | Potential production volume |
Even if the same quantity is received, a material shortage is not resolved if it arrives after the required production date. Review the actual available-for-use date by distinguishing the order date, supplier commitment date, transportation time, and import inspection lead time.
Items with no response and items with confirmed delays require different actions. Purchasing should distinguish between urging a response and discussing alternatives, while production planning should verify the affected orders and customer delivery dates.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When calculating the on-time delivery rate, determine whether the original commitment or the revised commitment is the basis. Review the change history together to avoid a situation where repeatedly postponing commitments makes the metric look better.
The review points for “No response” are as follows. Purchasing action: request commitment; plan verification: mark as a provisional risk.
The review points for “Delay commitment” are as follows. Purchasing action: discuss split delivery or alternatives; plan verification: review affected orders.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The review points for “Expected receipt” are as follows. Purchasing action: compare quantity and LOT; plan verification: available-for-use date after inspection.
The review points for “Partial receipt” are as follows. Purchasing action: verify remaining quantity and renewed commitment; plan verification: potential production volume.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Meet the Required Date Before the Ordered Quantity,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
Even if goods have arrived at the warehouse, they cannot be used immediately for production if they are awaiting inspection or on hold. Receipts, inspection decisions, put-away, and availability for issue must be managed separately to avoid overestimating the quantity secured by MRP.
When the manufacturer’s LOT differs from the internal receiving LOT, retain the linkage criteria. FIFO based on manufacturing date, expiration date, and storage conditions may differ from FIFO based on receipt date, so confirm the applicable policy for each item.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
Traceability is meaningful when supplier delivery data is linked to actual consumption records. Differences between delivery information and physical goods, as well as differences in packaging units and quantities, should be recorded as exceptions, with the grounds for corrections preserved.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Do Not Treat Receipts and Available Inventory as the Same Status,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
| Role | Management Criteria |
|---|---|
| Purchasing | Purchase Orders · Commitments · Change Approval |
| Supplier | Receipt · Commitment · Shipment Response |
| Materials | Receipt · Inventory · Issue |
| Quality | Inspection · Hold · Release Grounds |
Suppliers respond with delivery dates and quantities, planned shipments, and change implementation plans. Internal purchasing verifies the appropriateness of the response and approval conditions, while quality and materials are responsible for inspection and available-inventory criteria.
External users should access only materials related to their own company and assigned responsibilities. Review permissions to prevent the sharing of other suppliers’ pricing and quality data, and hand over both accounts and responsibilities when personnel change.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When purchase order changes and cancellations are communicated, distinguish the status confirmed by the other party. Processing differs for quantities already shipped and quantities not yet prepared, so agreed follow-up actions are needed instead of a simple completion check.
The review items for “Purchasing” are as follows. Management criteria: purchase orders, commitments, and change approval.
The review items for “Supplier” are as follows. Management criteria: receipt, commitment, and shipment response.
The review items for “Materials” are as follows. Management criteria: receipt, inventory, and issue.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The review items for “Quality” are as follows. Management criteria: inspection, hold, and grounds for release.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Distinguish the Responsibilities of Suppliers and Internal Personnel,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
Let us look more closely at the MRP calculation flow. Based on demand and the BOM, gross requirements are calculated first; on-hand inventory and scheduled receipts are then reflected to calculate net requirements. Applying lead times and lot-sizing rules makes it possible to determine when purchasing or production should be prepared. The calculation results should lead to review and approval by the person responsible. Whether to place an order when materials are short, postpone the plan, or consider an alternative depends on the business conditions. The value of automation lies in reducing the time spent repeating calculations and allowing personnel to focus on exceptions and choices.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “MPS/MRP Is the First Linking Hub in the Value Chain,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
SCM feeds supply availability back into planning. Sending a purchase order does not guarantee that the required materials will arrive by the required date. You must confirm supplier delivery responses, partial deliveries, and the time required for inspection and receipt. The work of notifying suppliers of changes and quality materials through WSP and receiving their responses can also be viewed as part of the same collaboration flow. Change collaboration through PLM and WSP and purchasing linkage through SCM should be designed with their implementation scopes distinguished. Rather than assuming that every connection is already complete functionality, validate them step by step against the actual suppliers' operations and data conditions.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “SCM Is a System That Connects Supply Capacity to the Value Chain, Not a Purchase Order System,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
These are the supplier portal dashboard and purchase order response screens. One shows the tasks to be handled and their status, while the other shows responses to individual purchase orders. The key question here is not only when the order was placed, but also when and how much can be received. If the date reported by the supplier is later than the production required date, it becomes an exception for the planning manager to review immediately. These example screens show how to share the same facts with suppliers. In actual operations, the response change history, responsible person, deadline, and criteria for handling nonresponses must also be defined.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “SCM·WSP: Connecting Supplier Responses to the Plan,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
Logistics information is also an input to production planning. Even if a quantity appears in the books, it may not be inventory currently available for use if it is on inspection hold or allocated to another order. MRP calculations can be trusted only when locations, statuses, and LOTs are distinguished and actual movements are recorded. After production is complete, inspection waiting time, packing, picking, and shipping also affect customer delivery dates. That is why logistics is not viewed merely as an ancillary task at the end of production. The flow of the same order is tracked through the actual point of completion when it is delivered to the customer.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “WMS Is a System That Completes Flow and Traceability, Not a System That Counts Inventory,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
This includes linked examples of the supplier LOT history and delivery progress screens. Rather than presenting a separate completed WMS screen, they show the supplier-side information needed to connect receiving, production consumption, and customer shipment. Knowing which LOT was delivered and when makes it possible to connect subsequent production and quality histories. In actual logistics integration, warehouse location, availability status, and identifiers for shipment items must also be checked. More important than the order in which screens are linked is having criteria that distinguish the same materials and products throughout the process.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Logistics Integration: LOT History and Delivery Progress,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
When a customer design change is received, first determine its scope of impact. Check how closely current inventory, outstanding purchase orders, production in progress, and planned shipments are related to the change. The decision depends on whether legacy inventory can continue to be used and whether customer approval is required. Connecting PLM change criteria with SCM, production, and quality enables each department to work according to the same effective date. During implementation validation, test transition situations in which both the new and previous criteria remain in effect. The change history and execution results must be retained together so they can be used for subsequent decisions.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “If a Customer Design Change Is Received,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
Connect purchasing commitments and inventory status to the quantity available for production.
Review operational gaps that cause stockouts and duplicate purchases because total inventory, receipt status, and quantities available for use on the shop floor differ.
MP Purchasing Plan · Receipts Compared with Purchase Orders
RP Inventory · Preliminary Receipt · Requisition · Issue · Physical Count
MPS·MRP and MES Execution Integration
Stockout Waiting · Expedited Purchase · Physical Count Variance · Preliminary Receipt Processing Time
Reconcile everything from purchase order to shop-floor issue for one product family and one warehouse before expanding.
First review existing materials, master data, and the actual procedures followed by personnel. Define the scope of interfaces, automation, and approvals after reviewing operational gaps.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
Distinguish purchase order completed, arrived at the warehouse, and available for use on the shop floor.
If you ask the purchasing person responsible whether the material is available, you may hear that the purchase order has been completed. However, the fact that an order was sent, the receipt date promised by the supplier, and the quantity actually received are different. The first gap arises when these three statuses are answered with one word. This is why CMC MP provides a view of receipts compared with purchase orders.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
Even if materials have arrived at the warehouse, they may not be immediately available for production if they are in preliminary receipt or awaiting inspection. The same applies to materials already allocated to other work. If only the total is reported without distinguishing the inventory location, status, and purpose of use, the production plan may appear more optimistic than reality.
The shop floor may have requisitioned materials while the issue transaction remains incomplete, or the warehouse may have sent them while the shop-floor record is delayed. This proposal reviews purchase orders, receipts, requisitions, and issues as separate events. Defining not only status names but also who must take the next action and when provides a starting point for reducing phone confirmations between departments.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
MPS·MRP → MP Purchasing → RP Inventory Transactions → MES Execution → Next Plan
The production plan and material requirements calculation are the starting points. When the production schedule changes in MPS, the dates and quantities of required materials also change. For MRP to be accurate, not only the BOM but also inventory and expected-receipt statuses must be correct. Running calculations more frequently without organizing execution data may simply repeat incorrect assumptions.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
CMC MP provides visibility into purchasing plans and receipts compared with purchase orders, while RP confirms inventory, preliminary receipts, requisitions, and issues. Viewing the two areas together makes it possible to distinguish whether a shortage is caused by an unplaced order, a delivery delay, or a delayed receipt transaction. The responsible department and solution should differ according to the cause.
Records of materials actually consumed and recorded on the shop floor affect the reliability of the next plan. The key is to reconcile data using the same item, warehouse, and work order. For customer-specific integration, first agree on which events change inventory. Connecting screens and connecting operational responsibilities must proceed together.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
Calculate the usable range instead of relying on the total.
Target 800 units − Available 500 units = Shortage of 300 units
Illustrative assumptions · The three excluded quantities do not overlap · One unit required per product
Consider the following illustrative case. One connector is required per product, and the target is 800 products. The inventory inquiry shows 1,000 connectors, so the quantity appears sufficient. But what if 250 are on inspection hold, 200 are allocated to other work, and 50 represent a physical discrepancy? The assumption is that the three quantities do not overlap.
After excluding quantities on hold, allocated to other work, and represented by unverified discrepancies, the currently available quantity is 500. Therefore, there is a shortage of 300 against the target. This calculation is not a claim about a fixed program formula; it is an example explaining which statuses the company should exclude from available inventory.
If 300 units are ordered immediately, duplicate purchases may be made for quantities that could be resolved by releasing the hold or adjusting allocations. The quality team confirms the disposition of the 250 units, production control checks whether the allocation can be changed, and the warehouse verifies the discrepancy of 50 units. Purchasing should determine the remaining shortage based on those results and the required timing.
Comparisons require matching the item, warehouse, and reference time.
The CMC RP inventory inquiry screen includes an item list and inquiry criteria. Similar names do not mean that items are the same material. Read the inventory only after confirming that the specifications and item codes match. Whether materials are substitutes must also be determined separately according to the responsible person’s approval criteria; do not total them based solely on similar names.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
Even within the same company, quantities in the materials warehouse and shop-floor warehouse move differently. The answer may vary depending on which warehouses are included. The inquiry time is also important. Match the reference time first so that differences between morning quantities and quantities after afternoon issues are not mistakenly judged to be system errors.
The change after implementation is not about making the inventory figure appear larger. It is about communicating together the conditions that the quantity belongs to this item, this warehouse, and this point in time. By organizing inventory inquiry criteria with CMC TECH, we can first reduce the problem of purchasing and shop-floor personnel answering the same question based on different scopes.
| Role | Key Responsibilities | Verification Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Design | Prepare Standards · Change Proposal | Distinguish Approved Configurations |
| Quality | Verify Validation · Approval Evidence | Manage Conditional Approvals |
| Purchasing · Materials | Coordinate Conversion Conditions | Check Existing Orders · Inventory |
| Supplier | Respond with Receipt Confirmation · Implementation Plan | Access Only the Assigned Scope |
Even when multiple suppliers participate in one product, the part numbers, documents, and response targets visible to each company differ. Configure the system after confirming each company's access permissions and assigned-task scope, and ensure that internal review comments are not confused with the external response screen.
When a person in charge leaves the company or a supplier changes, access permissions must be revoked and the work handed over. Also review separately the permission to modify already approved documents and the permission to register a new revision.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
During acceptance testing, access the same link using accounts from different companies to verify that the materials are separated. Check the scopes for viewing and responding, as well as receipt history and records of changes to the person in charge, in accordance with the customer's security policy.
The review items for “Design” are as follows. Main task: prepare standards · change proposal; verification condition: distinguish approved configurations.
The review items for “Quality” are as follows. Main task: verify validation · approval evidence; verification condition: manage conditional approvals.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The review items for “Purchasing · Materials” are as follows. Main task: coordinate conversion conditions; verification condition: check existing orders · inventory.
The review points for “Supplier” are as follows. Key task: respond with receipt confirmation and an implementation plan; access condition: access only the assigned scope.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Separate the Scope Shown to Suppliers from Internal Permissions,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
Even when the development schedule shows a high completion rate, it is difficult to decide whether to move to mass production if required test results or customer approval documents are missing. Review the APQP deliverables, responsible persons, and approval conditions in each stage in connection with the product revision.
If the BOM used for prototypes and test units differs from the BOM planned for mass production, verify whether the test results can be applied as they are. If any parts or processes have changed, clearly document the scope of additional validation and outstanding tasks.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
CMC TECH first confirms the customer’s development procedures and terminology. Rather than uniformly imposing every stage, including APQP, testing, initial samples, and PPAP, CMC TECH agrees on the required Gates and supporting evidence as part of the implementation scope.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Pre-Mass-Production Gate: Review Prepared Evidence Rather Than Progress,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
| Work | Before implementation | Points to verify after implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Change criteria | Verify by file name and email | Product, revision, and approval item |
| Supplier | Focus on whether notification was sent | Distinguish receipt confirmation from implementation planning |
| Mass-production readiness | Progress report | Verify deliverables and outstanding conditions |
| Post-implementation review | Rely on the person responsible’s memory | Trace the evidence for changes and implementation |
Under the existing approach, drawing files, change emails, supplier responses, and test data are scattered across different folders. Using the change number and product revision as common criteria allows a new person responsible to identify which materials need to be reviewed together.
The improvement goal is not simply to store more documents. It is to quickly identify gaps between the current approval criteria, the supplier’s implementation readiness, and the evidence of actual implementation, and then decide on the next action.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
Performance can be assessed not only by the number of days required to process changes, but also by the rate of supplementary responses, omissions in implementation conditions, and instances of using superseded drawings. The aggregation criteria and baseline period are agreed upon at project initiation; no improvement rate is guaranteed in advance.
The review points for “Change criteria” are as follows. Before implementation: verify by file name and email; points to verify after implementation: product, revision, and approval item.
The review points for “Supplier” are as follows. Before implementation: focus on whether notification was sent; points to verify after implementation: distinguish receipt confirmation from implementation planning.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The review points for “Mass-production readiness” are as follows. Before implementation: progress report; points to verify after implementation: verify deliverables and outstanding conditions.
The review points for “Post-implementation review” are as follows. Before implementation: rely on the person responsible’s memory; points to verify after implementation: trace the evidence for changes and implementation.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Compare Before and After Implementation Through Linked Records,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.
| Validation case | Verification result |
|---|---|
| Common-part change | Verify all affected models |
| Supplier delay | Distinguish not received from no response |
| Change to implementation date | Preserve existing and new conditions |
| Change of person responsible | Revoke permissions and hand over responsibilities |
A validation case should not consist solely of one routine change. It should also include real-world exceptions such as common parts, purchase orders already issued, delayed supplier responses, and changes to the implementation date.
View the same change from the perspectives of design, quality, purchasing, and the supplier. Verify that each role can see the criteria it needs and does not mistake unapproved content for the basis for execution.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
Validation results should record not only a pass indicator, but also the master data and operating procedures requiring improvement. Initially, it is appropriate to limit the scope to one product group and essential suppliers, then expand it after confirming an operationally viable process.
The review points for “Common-part change” are as follows. Verification result: verify all affected models.
The review points for “Supplier delay” are as follows. Verification result: distinguish not received from no response.
The review points for “Change to implementation date” are as follows. Verification result: preserve existing and new conditions.
| Connection Criteria | Items to Check |
|---|---|
| Purchase order | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Supplier response | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Due Date | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
| Shipment | Check Entries and Change History on the Same Basis |
The review points for “Change of person responsible” are as follows. Verification result: revoke permissions and hand over responsibilities.
After registering the purchase order quantity, the supplier’s commitment and actual supply status must feed back into the plan. Distinguish partial receipts, delays, and change implementation from normal delivery, and assess them together with the affected production orders.
Compare the original and revised commitments for a purchase order, actual receipt, and availability after inspection, and verify the agreement concerning any delay or quantity discrepancy.
When reviewing this chapter’s “Validate with One Representative Change,” read purchase orders, supplier responses, delivery dates, shipments, receipts, and inspections using the same criteria. Those responsible for purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality must check not only the values they enter, but also the information received from the previous step and the status passed to the next step.
Review cases involving changes, cancellations, and omissions alongside normal processing results. Record where judgments differ among purchasing, suppliers, materials, and quality, and agree on who will approve them and on what grounds. Any automation scope that cannot be verified using existing materials should remain on the pre-implementation review list.