Supplier corrective action request
Define the supplier problem, separate containment from corrective action, and keep the request open until effectiveness is reviewed. Explore the working SCAR App or download Excel.
Download the SCAR Excel template · XLSX
Sign in to explore the sample App. Install it with sample data to assign your team and try the review tasks.
Ask for an explanation you can act on
A supplier corrective action request starts with a precise problem: the affected item and lot, requirement, observed discrepancy and business impact. The bracket example cites two measured diameters above 10.10 mm. It does not ask the supplier to investigate an undefined “quality issue.”
| Part of the response | Too vague to act on | A more useful example |
|---|---|---|
| Containment | We checked the stock. | Hold the affected receipt, identify stock from the same setup and retain the screening results. |
| Occurrence cause | Operator error. | The tool replacement interval was not tied to the observed reamer wear trend. |
| Escape cause | Inspection missed it. | The final check sheet omitted the hole-diameter characteristic for this setup. |
| Corrective action | Retrain everyone. | Add a tool-life trigger and reinstate the diameter characteristic in the final inspection plan. |
| Effectiveness | No further complaints. | Review the agreed subsequent lots for repeated diameter failures and retain their inspection results. |
These are fictional examples, not predetermined root causes. The supplier’s investigation must support its explanation; a neatly completed form is not evidence that the cause is correct.
Do not close three different decisions with one status
Is this lot contained?
Sorting, segregation or return addresses the immediate exposure. Record the affected scope and disposition. A corrected lot may be released after an appropriate quality decision while the longer-term supplier action remains open.
Is the action plan credible?
Review the occurrence cause, escape cause, implementation owner and due date. Accepting the plan means the proposed work can proceed; it does not prove that the change has prevented recurrence.
Did the correction work?
Check subsequent evidence against the agreed criterion. In the App example, a repeated failure keeps the SCAR open. A later reviewed check with no recurrence closes that specific SCAR and retains both checks.
Make the request easy to answer—and hard to lose
Define the request
Link the received lot and failed inspection. State the requirement, observed failure, severity, response due date and supplier-quality owner. Include an evidence reference that lets the supplier identify the problem without guessing which shipment you mean.
Use risk-based escalation: a repeated failure or serious escape may need a formal SCAR, while an isolated paperwork correction may need a simpler follow-up. Avoid generating administrative work that adds no corrective value.
Follow the response
Record containment, separate occurrence and escape causes, the corrective action, implementation date and effectiveness plan. The native review task records acceptance or a request for correction. A separate effectiveness review determines whether the supplier action can close.
The public example demonstrates internal supplier-quality coordination. It is not a preconfigured external supplier portal. Configure supplier access or collect the response through your approved channel before entering it.
A business administrator can change response fields and review assignments as supplier risks change. Keep the lot relationship and closure rule intact, so adding a supplier category does not turn an accepted plan into a closed action.
Send the supplier a structured Excel request
Supplier corrective action request template
Editable problem, containment, occurrence and escape cause, action-plan and effectiveness fields. Includes a fictional example and a closure-readiness formula—not an automated approval.
The workbook is useful when a supplier returns a file. Jodoo adds the linked inspection, assigned reviews and retained follow-up records your internal team needs. The downloaded file does not synchronize with the App or grant permission to release the lot.
For the wider relationship—supplier records, risks and recurring performance—see supplier quality management. For a broader internal defect process, see nonconformance management.
Keep supplier action connected to the original evidence
Inspection report
Retain the readings and specification revision that define the supplier problem.
Incoming inspection
Keep lot release separate from long-term corrective-action closure.
Receiving checklist
Capture a specific receiving discrepancy instead of a generic quality comment.
Receiving inspection setup
Define who owns containment, supplier response and the final effectiveness decision.
SCAR template and follow-up questions
When should a receiving problem become a SCAR?
Use your risk and escalation criteria. Repeated defects, a serious quality escape, an ineffective prior correction or a systemic supplier-control gap may justify a formal SCAR. An isolated administrative correction does not always need the same investigation depth.
What is the difference between occurrence cause and escape cause?
Occurrence cause explains why the defect was created. Escape cause explains why the supplier’s checks did not detect it before shipment. A worn tool and a missing final-inspection characteristic are different problems and may need different corrective actions.
Is sorting the lot a corrective action?
Sorting contains the immediate problem. It does not necessarily remove the cause of recurrence. Ask what process, control or equipment change prevents the same defect, who will implement it and how effectiveness will be checked.
Can a lot be released while its SCAR is still open?
Yes, when your authorized quality decision permits the lot’s use after appropriate correction and verification. The longer-term supplier action may still need follow-up on later lots. The example therefore keeps lot release and SCAR closure separate.
What evidence is needed to close a SCAR?
Retain the implemented action, the agreed effectiveness criterion, follow-up results and the reviewer’s decision. In the example, a repeated failure keeps the SCAR open. A subsequent reviewed check with no recurrence can close it; merely accepting the supplier’s plan cannot.