Supplier Audit Checklist: How Japanese Customers Audit You
Your plant supplies stamped and plated parts to a Japanese customer, either in Japan or at its factory in Thailand, India, or the US. An email arrives from their purchasing and quality assurance team: an audit plan with a date, a list of records they want to see, and a jiko shindan-hyo (自己診断票, supplier self-assessment questionnaire) to fill in before the visit. You have passed their incoming inspection for months, so what are they coming to look at?
The short answer: a supplier audit checks the system that makes your parts, not only the parts themselves. The auditors want to see that the processes, people, and rules that protect quality run the way you say they do. In a well-run audit, the visit is only one of six steps. Deciding what to look at beforehand, and following up on corrective actions afterward, matter as much as the visit itself.
This guide explains a supplier audit from the customer's side, as Japanese quality and purchasing teams are advised to run one, so you can see what is coming and prepare for it. It covers the eight areas they check, the six steps of the audit, what happens on audit day, how findings and corrective action requests are written, and how your replies will be judged. It ends with a supplier audit checklist and a list of questions to ask your customer before the visit.
- A supplier audit (second-party audit) checks your quality system on your shop floor. Passing incoming inspection does not show the customer how your results are produced.
- There are eight areas to check. A buyer pays the most attention to change control, sub-suppliers, and lot traceability, because problems there reach the customer directly.
- Auditors judge you against documents you have agreed to: drawings, specifications, the quality assurance agreement, and your own QC process chart and work standards.
- On the day, expect them to walk the material flow and to connect what people say, what they see, and what the records show.
- A finding closes only when the fix is in place and shown to work. "We retrained the operator" rarely closes anything.
Contents
- What a Supplier Audit Checks That Incoming Inspection Can't
- The 8 Areas on a Supplier Audit Checklist
- The 6 Steps of a Supplier Audit
- Before the Audit: What the Customer Prepares
- Audit Day: They Walk the Material Flow
- After the Audit: Findings and the Corrective Action Request
- Closing Findings: How Your Reply Will Be Judged
- Supplier Audit Preparation Checklist
- Questions to Ask Your Japanese Customer Before the Audit
- Limits of This Guide
- FAQ
What a Supplier Audit Checks That Incoming Inspection Can't
In a supplier audit, the buyer visits your factory or office to confirm that the system that builds quality into the product works as defined. Auditors classify audits by who does them. An organization checking itself runs a first-party (internal) audit. A certification body runs a third-party audit. A customer auditing its supplier runs a second-party audit, called sapuraiya kansa (サプライヤー監査) or dai-nisha kansa (第二者監査) in Japanese.
ISO 19011:2018 (published in Japan as JIS Q 19011:2019) gives guidance on how to audit management systems, mainly internal audits and second-party audits. It is guidance, not a requirement, but its sequence of starting the audit, preparing, conducting it, reporting, completing, and following up fits a supplier audit well.
The requirement behind supplier audits sits in ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4. It requires the buyer to set and apply criteria for evaluating, selecting, monitoring the performance of, and re-evaluating external providers (suppliers and subcontractors), and to keep records of these activities. It does not require on-site audits. The buyer decides how to control each supplier according to risk. ISO 9001:2026 was published on September 16, 2026; this guide uses the clause numbers of the widely used 2015 edition.
If you pass incoming inspection and your delivery and defect numbers look fine, why would a customer still audit you? Because inspection results and monthly performance data show only outcomes that have already happened. An audit looks at the processes, people, and rules that produce those outcomes, and it can find weak points before they show up as defects.
The three do not replace one another; each looks at something different.
ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4 requires criteria and records for evaluation, selection, monitoring, and re-evaluation. The company decides which methods to use.
The 8 Areas on a Supplier Audit Checklist
The customer starts from the full picture, then picks the areas to examine closely for this audit.
Sample questions and records for each area are in Figure 7.
What a customer checks falls into eight areas. Five of them (quality system and documents, receiving and storage, process control, inspection and measuring equipment, and nonconforming product and corrective action) cover the same ground as an internal audit.
The other three, change control, sub-suppliers and outsourcing, and traceability and shipping, carry more weight for a buyer. They do not stay inside your factory; they affect the customer's receiving and the customer's own deliveries. Suppose you switch a material or a machine with good intentions, and the change causes a defect in the customer's process. Inspecting your delivered parts will not always catch that.
Depth Depends on the Type of Audit
An auditor who tries to cover all eight areas equally in one day ends up only confirming that documents exist. Instead, the customer chooses which areas to examine closely based on why the audit is happening:
- New supplier approval (before the first order): a broad look at your organization and process capability.
- Periodic audit (for an existing supplier): whether past findings stayed fixed, and what has changed since.
- After a quality problem (defects that escaped, repeated late deliveries): concentrated on the process where the problem started and on the corrective action.
- Change notification (you reported a process or material change): narrow and deep, on the changed point and what it affects.
◎ = time spent tracing physical evidence and records; ○ = checked once through.
This split is only an example. The customer sets it again for each audit, based on how critical the part is and on past performance.
The 6 Steps of a Supplier Audit
The visit is one step of six; the other five decide what the results are worth.
Rearranged for supplier audits from ISO 19011:2018 (JIS Q 19011:2019) clause 6: initiating, preparing, conducting, reporting, completing, and following up an audit.
A supplier audit has three preparation steps, one on-site step, and two follow-up steps. Audits turn into a formality when the customer treats Step 4 as an event and leaves Steps 5 and 6 to individual staff with no follow-through. From the supplier's side, this means the audit is not over when the auditors leave.
The audit team is often two people, one from purchasing and one from quality assurance. For complex processes, a production engineer or design engineer may join. Purchasing looks at commercial terms and communication rules, quality assurance looks at inspection and corrective action, and the engineer judges whether your process conditions make sense. In the customer's purchasing workflow, the audit belongs to supplier selection and evaluation.
Who comes affects what they find. IATF 16949, the automotive quality management standard, requires the customer to demonstrate the competence of its second-party auditors in clause 7.2.4. That includes understanding the manufacturing process being audited, including the process FMEA and the control plan (Japanese suppliers often call the control plan a QC kotei-hyo, QC工程表, or QC process chart). In any industry, having at least one auditor who knows the process keeps the audit from stopping at a paperwork check. Related: DRBFM vs FMEA.
Related: AIAG-VDA FMEA for Japanese Customers: DFMEA vs PFMEA
Before the Audit: What the Customer Prepares
Before the visit, the customer decides three things: which supplier to visit, what to judge you against, and how to check. The rest of this guide uses one fictional example. The part is a bracket made by sheet-metal stamping and zinc plating. You (the direct, or tier-1, supplier) do the stamping in-house and send the plating to an outside plating shop.
Why You Were Selected
No customer can visit every supplier every year, so the choice is based on risk. IATF 16949 clause 8.4.2.4.1 asks automotive companies to base the need, type, frequency, and scope of second-party audits on a risk analysis that includes product safety and regulatory requirements, supplier performance, and the supplier's quality certification level. The IATF's published FAQ adds that, depending on that analysis, a second-party audit may not be needed at all, and lists further criteria such as product complexity, new product launches, significant staff turnover, and quality and delivery problems. The same criteria work as a yardstick for setting priorities in other industries. Expect a closer look if any of these apply to you:
- You make parts whose failure has serious consequences (safety- or regulation-related parts).
- You have had repeated incoming rejects or late deliveries, or your corrective action replies have been late.
- A new product launch or a major change in plant, equipment, or key staff is coming up.
- You lack certification such as ISO 9001, or the customer has no alternative source.
The Documents They Judge You Against
An auditor who arrives without a clear standard cannot say whether what they see is acceptable. A finding counts as a nonconformity only when the facts do not meet a requirement you have agreed to.
Those requirements live in drawings and specifications, the hinshitsu hosho kyotei-sho (品質保証協定書, quality assurance agreement) or the quality clauses of the basic transaction agreement, the nonyu shiyosho (納入仕様書, delivery specification), the inspection agreement, and the rules for notifying changes. Your own QC process chart and work standards count too, because you wrote them. In the bracket example, the customer checks before leaving which document, and which section, states the plating thickness and appearance criteria and the rule that a change of plating subcontractor must be notified in advance. For what a delivery specification usually covers, see Delivery Specification (Nonyu Shiyosho).
Related: Quality Assurance Process at Japanese Plants: 8 Steps
This step sometimes exposes gaps on the customer's side: the change-notification rule was never written down, or a requirement missing from the drawing was only given verbally. The buyer is expected to fix the agreement first, because citing a requirement the supplier was never given will not lead to a real corrective action. If you are unsure whether a requirement is actually written somewhere, ask before the audit.
The Self-Assessment Questionnaire and Your Track Record
To save time on the day for checking physical evidence, the customer collects on paper what it can in advance. The self-assessment questionnaire typically asks for your organization chart, process flow, QC process chart, main equipment, outsourced processes and subcontractors, and certifications.
On their side, the customer lines up your history for the past one to two years: incoming rejects (count and type), on-time delivery, earlier corrective action requests and your replies, and the change notifications you sent. Processes with many defects, corrective actions that were answered only on paper, and anything that changed without notice become the focus on the day. They also pick one lot you actually delivered and will ask you to trace it during the audit.
On-Site, Document, or Remote Audit
An on-site visit is not the only option. For low-risk suppliers, a customer may accept the self-assessment questionnaire plus supporting documents, and spend the saved time on on-site audits of critical suppliers. Across the whole supplier base, that approach misses fewer problems.
The method is chosen by what needs to be confirmed, not by a fixed rule.
Among its changes from the 2011 edition, ISO 19011:2018 (JIS Q 19011:2019) added guidance on virtual audits and on auditing supply chains.
The Audit Plan
Once the date is set, the customer should send a written audit plan. It typically states the purpose, the part numbers and processes in scope, the auditors, the timetable, the records to be shown, and whether photos and copies of documents may be taken away.
Your factory also makes products for other customers and holds its own process know-how. What you will show and how information will be handled should be agreed in advance, based on the basic transaction agreement or the non-disclosure agreement. Unannounced visits are generally reserved for cases where the contract provides for them and a serious problem is suspected.
Audit Day: They Walk the Material Flow
Auditors walk from incoming material to shipped product, in the same order as the parts.
If a process is outsourced, the route includes both where parts leave and where they come back.
The day usually runs in this order: opening meeting, shop-floor tour, document review, a private discussion among the auditors, and the closing meeting. The opening meeting confirms the purpose, scope, timetable, and the rules for access and photography. It should be kept short to leave time for the floor.
On the floor, the auditors follow the parts from receiving to shipping. Compared with asking questions clause by clause in a meeting room, this exposes the problems that occur where one process hands off to the next. Unlabeled work in process, an area where nobody can say which parts are inspected, and how boxes returning from a subcontractor are handled are the kinds of things auditors notice only by walking.
Checks and Sample Questions by Area
Questions reveal the procedure, physical evidence shows reality, and records show it is consistent.
Questions are examples. Good checklists include "not applicable" and "not checked" alongside "conforms" and "does not conform," so that items the auditor could not see are not left vague.
Questions, Physical Evidence, and Records
Yes/no checklist items only get "Yes, we do that" as an answer. Instead, auditors ask operators and supervisors to explain the procedure, then check whether the explanation matches what is in front of them, and whether the records show it is done consistently.
In the bracket example, an auditor stands at the press and asks, "After a die change, what do you check on the first piece?" Then they ask for that day's first-piece inspection record, pull several records from a month earlier, and look for gaps or entries that were filled in afterward in one sitting. When a check procedure exists on paper but is not followed, the causes often overlap with the reasons work standards are not followed in general. Blaming the individual operator does not fix it.
Related: Standardized Work Instructions: Sagyo Hyojunsho Template
Auditors choose which records to see, by date or lot, rather than letting you pick. They note what they saw, the job title of the person they spoke to, and the name and date of each record, because these become the evidence when they write findings.
Five Areas a Buyer Probes Hardest
Change control. The question is less whether you have a notification rule than where your people draw the line on what counts as a change. Switching material makers, replacing a die, moving a machine, changing an operator, and changing a subcontractor are all changes. Japanese customers group them as 4M henko (4M変更, 4M changes): man, machine, material, and method. Expect to be asked to pick one recent change and walk through it from notifying the customer, through approval and first-piece inspection, to the update on the floor.
Sub-suppliers and outsourcing. The customer first checks how you evaluate your subcontractors and how you inspect parts when they come back. In the bracket example, it makes a big difference whether you measure plating thickness yourself or simply accept the plater's certificate. The customer considers visiting your sub-supplier directly only when that process determines quality and your controls leave doubts. Since there is usually no contract between the customer and your sub-supplier, such a visit is normally requested through you, with you attending, and access and disclosure depend on the contracts in place.
Traceability. This is checked by demonstration, not by asking. The auditor gives you the number of the delivered lot chosen in advance and asks you to produce, on the spot, the material lot, the processing date and machine, the inspection records, and the dates the parts went to and came back from the subcontractor. How far back you can trace, and how long it takes, shows how well you could narrow down the affected range if a defect occurred.
Special processes. Heat treatment, welding, plating, and painting are processes whose results are hard to verify by inspecting the finished part. Auditors therefore look less at final inspection records and more at whether conditions such as temperature, time, and bath concentration are recorded continuously, and whether there is a defined procedure for lots processed outside the specified conditions. They also check that the process FMEA, which lists the conditions that lead to defects, matches the control items in your QC process chart.
Measuring equipment. Auditors pick a few instruments in use on the floor and check that the calibration due date on each matches the equipment register. They also ask what you did with parts already measured when a calibration found an instrument out of tolerance.
Related: JCSS Calibration: Certificates, Intervals, and Records
The Closing Meeting
After the floor and documents, the auditors meet privately to compare what they found. In the closing meeting, they present each potential finding with the requirement it relates to and where they saw what. The purpose is not to announce a verdict but to agree on the facts with you. If you can produce a record they missed, the finding should be withdrawn, so have the right people and records at hand. The deadline for your corrective action reply and the contact person on each side are also set here.
After the Audit: Findings and the Corrective Action Request
The customer should send the audit report and the zesei yokyu-sho (是正要求書, corrective action request) as soon as possible, because memories and momentum fade on both sides. Setting an internal target, such as within one week, helps.
How a Finding Is Written
A well-written finding separates three things: the facts observed, the requirement they were compared with, and the judgment. For the bracket example, it might look like this (dates and wording are fictional):
- Facts observed: The plating subcontractor changed to a different company in April 2026. There was no change request record, and the customer was not notified. (Confirmed by interviewing the production section manager and from the receiving records for plated parts.)
- Requirement: The clause in the quality assurance agreement stating, "When changing a subcontractor, notify the customer in writing in advance and obtain approval."
- Judgment: Nonconformity (change control).
A finding like "change control is inadequate" does not tell you what to fix. If you receive one, ask the customer for the specific facts and requirement behind it.
How Findings Are Graded
Many companies grade findings in three levels: major nonconformity, minor nonconformity, and observation (opportunity for improvement). No standard fixes these levels for everyone. Each company sets the number of levels and the criteria.
In supplier audits, grading is most consistent when it is based on whether the issue affects delivered product or the customer's own customers. By that test, changing a subcontractor without notice affects parts already delivered, so it is an example of a finding treated as a major nonconformity. A one-off gap, such as one day missing from a check sheet, is typically a minor nonconformity. Something that breaks no agreed requirement but could become a problem is passed on as an observation.
What the Corrective Action Request Asks For
Besides the finding, the request states what your reply must include and the deadline. The basic contents are four items:
- Containment: immediate action, including checking how far the problem reaches into parts already delivered.
- Root cause.
- Permanent corrective action and its implementation date.
- How effectiveness will be verified.
Deadlines are usually tiered by severity. For a major nonconformity, for example, the containment reply might be due within a few days and the root cause and permanent action within two to four weeks. These numbers are only illustrations; the actual deadlines follow the quality assurance agreement or similar. In automotive, many customers specify the 8D report as the reply format.
Related: How to Write an 8D Report: D0–D8 and the Toyota 8-Step
Scores and Ratings
Some customers convert audit results into a score to compare suppliers or track changes from the last audit. A well-known example is VDA 6.3, the process audit standard of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA). The current edition, VDA 6.3:2023, was published in January 2023 and has 59 questions.
Each question is scored 10, 8, 6, 4, or 0. The overall result is classified A (90% or higher), B (80% to under 90%), or C (below 80%). However, downgrading rules can lower the class when key questions score poorly, even if the overall percentage is high, so the score alone does not decide the outcome. The same idea is useful for an in-house scoring system: the score shows trends, while business decisions rest on the severity of individual findings and the progress of corrective actions.
Closing Findings: How Your Reply Will Be Judged
Sending the report does not finish the audit. Your quality changes only when the findings are corrected and the correction holds.
Four Points Your Corrective Action Reply Must Cover
Your reply will be read against these four points and sent back, with reasons, if any is missing:
- Scope of impact: Did you check parts already delivered, work in process, and stock?
- Cause: Did you address both why it happened and why it was not detected?
- Permanent action: Did a system or procedure change, rather than only "informed all staff" or "retrained"?
- Effectiveness check: Is it defined what will be checked, until when, and with which records?
Many replies are sent back because the root cause stops at "operator's lack of awareness." The customer will want you to dig into why the process did not stop the error even though awareness was lacking. If process variation is part of the cause, showing before-and-after control charts or process capability indexes (Cp/Cpk) makes the reply much easier to accept.
"Implemented" Is Not "Effective"
The customer should set the conditions for closing a finding when it issues the finding. The key distinction is that putting a fix in place is not the same as showing it works. Revising a procedure proves only that the action was implemented.
How a finding of an unnotified subcontractor change moves to closure.
The three months is an example. The review period and number of records are set for each finding, based on how often changes and production happen.
Effectiveness can be confirmed through documents and evidence, through records shown remotely, or by another visit. For major nonconformities and for fixes that change the work on the floor, a revisit is the most reliable. For findings linked to defects in delivered parts, the customer also looks at incoming inspection results for a period after the fix.
When Deadlines Slip or Progress Stalls
If your reply is late, the customer typically stops chasing at the working level and escalates in a set order, from the working-level contact to a manager, then to the person in overall charge. At the same time, they tighten their own incoming inspection to stop defects from getting through.
If there is still no improvement, business measures come into play, such as holding off on orders for new part numbers or looking for an alternative source. That decision should not rest with the auditors or the quality department alone. Stopping orders can stop the customer's own production, and switching suppliers means requalification and time. The usual split is that quality presents the facts and risk assessment, purchasing presents the supply impact and alternatives, and an authorized approver decides. Knowing in advance which situation leads to which response also helps you set priorities for improvement.
How Results Feed into Your Supplier Rating
The audit results go into the customer's supplier evaluation records. ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4 requires records of evaluation and re-evaluation activities and of any actions arising from them, and the audit report, corrective action request, replies, and effectiveness records together meet that requirement.
The next audit plan is adjusted too. Suppliers with few findings and quick corrective actions may see longer intervals or a switch to document-based checks. Suppliers with slow corrective actions, or the same type of finding again and again, are audited more often. If a customer visits the same suppliers every year with the same checklist, it is time for them to review both the suppliers selected and the checklist items.
An audit is not a hunt for faults. Counting findings as achievements, or questioning people like suspects, teaches suppliers to hide inconvenient facts. A customer that points out issues based on facts, and shares the information you need to fix them, protects its own quality in the end. As the supplier, the most useful response is the mirror image: show the real situation, and ask for what you need to fix it.
Supplier Audit Preparation Checklist
Use this list to prepare for an audit by a Japanese customer. It turns the customer-side steps above into things you can check in advance.
Before the visit
- Audit type confirmed (new supplier approval, periodic, after a quality problem, or change-related) and the areas likely to be examined closely
- Written audit plan received: purpose, part numbers and processes, auditors, timetable, records requested
- Rules on photos, copies, and confidential areas agreed in advance
- Self-assessment questionnaire answered with evidence you can show on the day
- Latest drawing revision, specification, quality assurance agreement, and delivery specification on hand, with the clauses that apply to the audited parts identified
- Your own record reviewed: rejects, late deliveries, open corrective actions, and changes notified (or not) over the past one to two years
- QC process chart, work standards, and process FMEA consistent with each other and with what happens on the floor
Shop floor and records
- Every lot on the floor identified, with inspected and uninspected parts clearly separated
- Nonconforming product area labeled, with records of who decided the disposition
- Measuring equipment in use within its calibration date and listed in the register; a recorded response for any out-of-tolerance results
- Continuous condition records for special processes (heat treatment, welding, plating, painting) and a defined rule for lots out of condition
- Operators able to explain their own procedure, including first-piece checks after a die or tool change
- Inspection criteria matched to the latest drawing revision, and boundary samples (gendo mihon, 限度見本) under control
Buyer-priority areas
- 4M change log up to date; one recent change ready to walk through from notification to the floor
- List of outsourced processes and subcontractors, with evaluation records and receiving checks for returned parts
- Traceability drill done: from a delivered lot number back to material lot, processing date and machine, inspection records, and subcontractor shipping and return dates
After the audit
- Each finding stated as facts, requirement, and judgment; ask for clarification if it is not
- Reply covers scope of impact, cause (occurrence and detection), permanent action, and effectiveness check
- Reply deadlines and the customer's contact person recorded
- Evidence ready to show both implementation and effectiveness, in line with the agreed closure conditions
Questions to Ask Your Japanese Customer Before the Audit
- What is the purpose of this audit, and which part numbers and processes are in scope?
- Which agreement or document will findings be judged against? Is there a requirement we have received only verbally?
- Which records should we have ready, and which delivered lot will you trace?
- Is the audit on-site, document-based, or remote, and will a revisit be needed?
- Can auditors take photos or copies? Which areas are off-limits because of other customers' products?
- Do you need to visit our plating (or other) subcontractor? If so, how should we arrange it?
- How are findings graded, and what reply format do you expect (your own form, 8D, or another)?
- What are the reply deadlines for containment and for permanent corrective action?
- How will results affect our supplier rating and the next audit interval?
Limits of This Guide
- Practices vary. Document names, how findings are graded, reply deadlines, and how results link to business decisions differ between customers, industries, and projects. Your quality assurance agreement and your customer's instructions take priority over anything here.
- The deadlines, intervals, and the bracket example are illustrations. They show how the process works, not values you can expect from a particular customer.
- Automotive customers add their own requirements. IATF 16949 sets requirements for second-party auditor competence, VDA 6.3 provides a scored process audit, and many customers specify 8D for corrective action replies. Customer-specific requirements can add more.
- Contract and legal questions are not covered. What you must disclose, and whether an unannounced visit or a visit to your sub-supplier is allowed, depends on your contracts. Check with your own legal or contracts team.
FAQ
What Is a Second-Party Audit?
A second-party audit is an audit a customer carries out on its supplier. A first-party audit is an internal audit, and a third-party audit is carried out by a certification body. ISO 19011 gives guidance that applies to second-party audits.
Does ISO 9001 Require Customers to Audit Their Suppliers On-Site?
No. ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4 requires criteria for evaluating, selecting, monitoring, and re-evaluating suppliers, and records of those activities. The customer chooses the method, such as on-site audits, document reviews, or performance monitoring, according to risk.
What Is a 4M Change?
A 4M change is a change to man, machine, material, or method: for example, a new operator, a moved or replaced machine, a different material maker, or a revised process. Japanese customers usually expect advance notice of such changes, as set out in the quality assurance agreement.
How Do I Respond to a Corrective Action Request from a Japanese Customer?
Cover four points: containment (including parts already delivered), the root cause of both the occurrence and why it was not detected, a permanent action that changes the system or procedure, and how and when you will verify that it works. Replies that stop at "retrained the operator" are often sent back.
What Is a Passing Score in a VDA 6.3 Process Audit?
VDA 6.3 classifies results as A (90% or higher), B (80% to under 90%), or C (below 80%). Downgrading rules can lower the class when key questions score poorly, so a high percentage does not guarantee an A.
Sources
- Audit guidance (ISO 19011): Japanese Standards Association, JIS Q 19011:2019 (ISO 19011:2018) Guidelines for auditing management systems, preview (Japanese); IRCA Japan, ISO 19011:2018 main changes and impact (Japanese); Technofer, What is ISO 19011 (Japanese); ASQ, ISO 19011:2018 standard revision
- ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4: JQA, ISO NETWORK Vol. 27 (Japanese); Management Office Imamura, supplier evaluation under ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4 (Japanese); Auditor Training Online, ISO 9001 Clause 8.4
- ISO 9001:2026 publication date: Japanese Standards Association, ISO 9001:2026 (Japanese); NSF, ISO 9001:2026 published on September 16, 2026
- Second-party audits and risk analysis: IATF, IATF 16949:2016 FAQs, April 2021 (Japanese edition); clause 8.4.2.4.1 wording as quoted on the Elsmar Cove forum
- Second-party auditor competence (clause 7.2.4): QMS study site, IATF 16949 clause 7.2.4 explained (Japanese); Omnex, IATF 16949 supplier auditor training
- VDA 6.3:2023 publication, question count, and scoring: DQS, Changes to VDA 6.3:2023
- VDA 6.3 overall classification (A, B, C): VDA QMC, QZ article "Globale Automotive-Prozesse auf dem Radar" (German)
Original article in JapaneseThis guide is adapted from a MONOSCOPE article written for readers in Japan: サプライヤー監査のチェック項目｜準備・当日・是正フォローの進め方
About the editor
MONOSCOPE EditorFOUNDER & EDITORSpent about ten years at a plant equipment maker and a plant engineering company, proposing, designing, and commissioning equipment, then moved into web marketing. Now a web consultant for B2B manufacturers, helping them explain their products and technology. Licensed in Japan as an Energy Manager and a Third-Class Chief Electrical Engineer.
Has run an engineering blog since 2017 (500+ articles) and a Japanese YouTube channel with about 20,000 subscribers. Each English guide is written from the Japanese shop-floor point of view and checked against the cited standards.
