Risk is not performance
Keep inherent supplier risk separate from current performance. A consistently capable supplier of flight-critical special-process hardware may still justify enhanced assurance because consequence and dependency remain high.
Special Processes Institute
sp-i.org
Supplier Assurance & Development Report
Supplier Assurance & Development
Integrate supplier risk assessment, performance monitoring and structured development in one closed-loop assurance system. Import supplier NCR data from CSV or Excel, analyse trends and escapes, score supplier performance, assess inherent and current risk, trigger development when evidence warrants it, manage measurable actions and exit criteria, then generate a professional supplier assurance report.
Supplier Risk Performance Development Escapes & Repeat NCRs
0
Suppliers in data
0
Filtered NCRs
0
Customer escapes
0
Repeat NCRs
£0
NCR / COPQ cost
—
Selected performance
—
Selected current risk
Closed-Loop Supplier Assurance
Use evidence to decide the level of supplier attention.
Supplier assurance should connect risk, actual performance and improvement. A supplier can be inherently high risk because of product criticality, sole-source dependency or special processes while still performing well. Conversely, a lower-criticality supplier can require development because recurring defects, escapes or ineffective corrective action demonstrate poor current control.
Assess RiskUnderstand inherent exposure and control effectiveness
Measure PerformanceUse quality, delivery, escape, RCCA and audit evidence
DevelopImprove weak systems with measurable actions
ReassessVerify effectiveness and adjust surveillance
Use trends, not one month
Single-period metrics can be noisy. Review recurring failure modes, escapes, closure ageing, RCCA effectiveness and direction of travel alongside headline scores.
Development needs exit criteria
Improvement projects should have a baseline, target, owners, due dates, effectiveness evidence and objective criteria for returning the supplier to normal surveillance.
Do not reward under-reporting
A low NCR count is not automatically good performance. Consider receiving volume, escapes, audit evidence, reporting culture and whether problems are being detected and raised consistently.
Special processes matter
Where product conformity cannot be fully verified later, supplier capability, process validation, competent personnel, equipment control and change management deserve greater risk weighting.
Scores support judgement
Weights and thresholds in this app are configurable defaults. They support structured decisions but do not replace technical, contractual, regulatory or customer-specific requirements.
Import Supplier NCR Data
CSV + XLSXCompatible schema: the app recognises the supplied SPI example column names. CSV is parsed locally in the browser. XLSX/XLS uses SheetJS when the library is available from the CDN.
No NCR dataset loaded.
Data Quality Check
Load data to validate required and recommended fields.
Compatible Column Dictionary
Exact names are recommended for reliable import.
| Column | Use | Required? |
|---|
Imported NCR Preview
0 rows
Supplier Performance Dashboard
Filters update the NCR view; PPM and OTD use unique supplier-period denominators.
0NCRs
—Affected units PPM
—On-time delivery
—RCCA on time
—Average audit score
£0NCR cost
NCR Trend
Top Defect Categories
Supplier Ranking
Illustrative score using configurable thresholds and weights.
| Supplier | NCRs | PPM | OTD | Escapes | Repeats | RCCA on time | Audit | Cost | Performance |
|---|
Performance Model Settings
Defaults are configurableWeights (%)
Reference thresholds
These are example decision-support settings, not universal aerospace/defence acceptance criteria. Align them with your organisation's contractual requirements, supplier segmentation and risk appetite.
Supplier Risk Assessment
Two views: Inherent risk considers what the supplier/source is and the consequence/dependency of failure. Current risk adds evidence of control and recent performance. Scores are decision aids; document rationale for unusual ratings.
Supplier Development Project
0% complete
Development Actions
Exit Criteria
Integrated Assurance Review
Combines supplier evidence into an assurance recommendation.
Select a supplier and generate a review.
Suggested Assurance Levels
| Level | Typical evidence pattern | Possible response |
|---|---|---|
| Routine | Acceptable risk and stable performance | Normal performance review and contractual surveillance. |
| Enhanced | Higher inherent risk or early adverse trend | More frequent review, targeted audit, additional evidence or focused surveillance. |
| Development | Material performance weakness or recurring systemic issue | Formal supplier development plan with milestones, metrics and exit criteria. |
| Intensive | High risk combined with poor performance, escapes or weak RCCA | Containment, increased surveillance, senior reviews and supply-continuity controls. |
| Executive Escalation | Critical/current risk with sustained failure or unacceptable consequence | Executive governance, alternative-source/continuity assessment and customer escalation where required. |
Supplier Assurance & Development Report
Generated for the selected supplier.
Generate an assurance review and select Generate Supplier Report.