An audit found the same two findings three years running. The findings had been written correctly each time, discussed, and closed; nobody had owned the change, so the same two observations were waiting at the next visit. The problem was not the audit. It was that the programme had no mechanism between the findings.
Supplier audits: the failures that make a programme useless
Four failures: a calendar schedule, one scope for every supplier, findings without owners, and no verification afterwards.
Each is a programme-level problem rather than an auditing skill, which means each can be fixed with a rule rather than with more effort on site. Together they explain why some suppliers see audits as a formality and others treat a visit as a genuine deadline.
The sequence below starts with the schedule because the rest of the programme inherits it: auditing the wrong supplier thoroughly produces less than auditing the right one at the right frequency.
Failure 1: audits scheduled by calendar rather than by risk
Frequency should follow exposure, not the anniversary of the last visit.
A supplier building a safety-critical platform for three markets carries more exposure than one shipping an accessory to a single country, and the schedule should reflect that difference. Risk factors worth scoring are the product’s certification dependency, the number of markets, the annual volume, the concentration on one line and the history of defects. The output is a frequency per supplier rather than a date in everyone’s diary.
Failure 2: the same scope for every supplier
An audit scoped to a product asks better questions than one scoped to a system.
Scope each audit around the configuration being bought: the platform and its revision, the process steps that matter for it, the test limits and the records behind the last batch. That makes the findings useful for the product rather than for the supplier’s certificate, and it reduces the visit to the two or three areas where the risk actually sits.
Failure 3: findings without owners
A finding is an instruction with a name on it, or it is an observation.
Every finding should state the fact with its evidence, the required change, the person responsible, the date and the method that will show it worked. Where a finding concerns a limit, the change is the limit and its source; where it concerns a station, the change is the fixture, the instruction or the training. The owner is a named person rather than a department, because a department cannot be asked why something did not happen.
Failure 4: no verification on the next batch
The verification is the part that turns an audit into a change.
Confirm the change on the next shipment: does the revised limit appear in the criteria document, does the fixture show the modification, and do the raw measurements reflect it. One page is enough. Where verification is skipped, findings accumulate in the same words year after year, and the audit programme acquires a reputation that makes the next visit harder to run.
| Failure | How it appears | Fix at programme level | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calendar scheduling | The same visit every year | A risk score per supplier | Schedule reviewed per quarter |
| One scope for all | Generic checklists | Scope per product and revision | Findings reference the product |
| Findings without owners | Recommendations in the report | A named owner, date and method | Owner confirms the change |
| No verification | The same finding returns | A one-page check on the next batch | Raw data shows the change |
Designing the schedule around risk
Four factors, scored once and reviewed each quarter.
Certification dependency: how many markets the product must satisfy. Volume: the annual quantity and the cost of a recall. Concentration: whether the product runs on one line or several. History: the number of escapes and the age of the last corrective action. The score does not need to be precise; it needs to differentiate, so that a supplier with a new platform, three markets and a recent escape is visited twice a year while a stable accessory supplier is visited once every two years.
The record that closes an audit
One page per finding, and one page for the visit.
The visit record states the scope, the date, the participants and the areas examined. Each finding then carries its own page: the fact and the evidence, the change required, the owner, the date and the verification method. When the next batch arrives, the verification is recorded against the same page. That structure is what allows an audit programme to be reviewed a year later without reading through reports.
FAQ
How often should suppliers be audited?
According to exposure: a supplier with a new platform, several markets and a recent defect warrants a visit every six to twelve months, while a stable one on a single market can be reviewed every two years with documentary checks in between. Set the frequency from the exposure rather than the calendar, because a new platform and a recent defect both raise it.
Who should carry out the audit?
Someone who can read the records and follow the process, with the product specification in hand. Where the buyer lacks the resource, an independent inspector can run the visit against the same scope and the same record format. Choose someone who can read the records and follow the process with the specification in hand, or an independent inspector working to the same scope and record format.
What if a supplier disputes a finding?
The finding is stated with its evidence, so the dispute is about the evidence rather than the conclusion. That is the reason the record carries the measurement or the record reference next to the finding instead of a description of it. State the finding with its evidence, so the dispute is about the evidence rather than the conclusion, which is why the record carries the measurement.
Does a certificate replace an audit?
A certificate describes a system and an audit examines a product. The system certificate is context; the audit answers what happens to your configuration, on that line, with those limits. A certificate describes a system while an audit examines a product, so the certificate is context and the audit answers what happens to your configuration on that line with those limits.
How is an audit programme reported internally?
Four numbers are enough: audits completed against plan, findings open, findings closed on time, and escapes since the last review. Anything longer is usually a narrative that does not change the schedule. Audits completed against plan, findings open, findings closed on time and escapes since the last review are the four that change the schedule, and anything longer is usually a narrative.
Next step
Send the supplier list, the products and the volumes to Wecent Group through the contact page. The reply states the audit scope for the configuration, the risk score behind the frequency and the record format used for findings and verification. Related reading: OEM and ODM charger manufacturing, charger manufacturing services and the factory floor. External references: IEC standards, BSI ISO 9001 quality management, IQNet certification network, UL standards and certification, Intertek testing services and ICC Incoterms rules.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How often should suppliers be audited?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”According to exposure: a supplier with a new platform, several markets and a recent defect warrants a visit every six to twelve months, while a stable one on a single market can be reviewed every two years with documentary checks in between.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Who should carry out the audit?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Someone who can read the records and follow the process, with the product specification in hand. Where the buyer lacks the resource, an independent inspector can run the visit against the same scope and the same record format.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What if a supplier disputes a finding?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The finding is stated with its evidence, so the dispute is about the evidence rather than the conclusion. That is the reason the record carries the measurement or the record reference next to the finding instead of a description of it.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does a certificate replace an audit?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”A certificate describes a system and an audit examines a product. The system certificate is context; the audit answers what happens to your configuration, on that line, with those limits.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How is an audit programme reported internally?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Four numbers are enough: audits completed against plan, findings open, findings closed on time, and escapes since the last review. Anything longer is usually a narrative that does not change the schedule.”}}]}