From scattered evidence to QMS–SRM–ERP cases with immutable evidence, audit-ready closures

Overview

An aerospace supplier’s quality claim processing dragged on because photos, inspection results, and email threads sat in separate systems. Intelligex implemented a case management workflow that connected the Quality Management System (QMS), Supplier Relationship Management (SRM), and a secure, centralized evidence store. Nonconformance and corrective action flowed through a single record tied to the supplier, lot, and purchase order. Claims moved with fewer status meetings, supplier responses were tracked in one place, and complete tracebacks were available for audits.

Client Profile

• Industry: Aerospace components and assemblies
• Company size: Multi-site manufacturer supplying Tier 1 and OEM programs
• Stage: Established quality system aligning to AS9100; modernizing cross-functional workflows
• Department owner: Procurement, Supply Chain & Logistics (Supplier Quality Engineering)
• Other stakeholders: Quality, Manufacturing Engineering, SRM/Procurement, Program Management, Legal/Compliance, IT/Enterprise Applications, Internal Audit, Key Suppliers

The Challenge

When a defect surfaced, teams opened a nonconformance in the QMS, contacted the supplier via email, and attached photos to shared drives. Incoming inspection data lived in a plant system, while supplier replies and 8D reports arrived as attachments in long threads. Program managers asked for updates in recurring meetings because no one could see end-to-end status. Root cause analysis took longer than it should have, and corrective actions went missing between systems.

Operational details multiplied the friction. Evidence needed to be redacted for external sharing, serial and lot numbers were retyped into forms, and the SRM did not reflect open claims or supplier commitments. Manufacturing Engineering tracked rework in its own tool, and Legal wanted assurance that obligations and responses were recorded against the right contract. Despite a strong documented quality system, the last mile of coordination depended on people stitching together emails, screenshots, and spreadsheets.

Why It Was Happening

The QMS handled nonconformance and corrective action well, but it wasn’t the place where supplier contacts, contracts, and commercial terms lived. The SRM tracked supplier performance and renewals, not defect-level evidence. Plant systems produced inspection results and photos, yet those artifacts were not consistently linked to the case record. Without a shared case object that tied artifacts, transactions, and roles together, updates jumped between channels and got lost.

Governance existed on paper, not in the workflow. The quality manual described 8D and containment processes, but there was no common gate to ensure evidence, supplier responses, and approvals were complete before closing a claim. Auditors asked for tracebacks that took days to assemble because approvals and evidence lived in inboxes and file shares rather than on the supplier or nonconformance record.

The Solution

Intelligex established a case management workflow that bridged systems without replacing them. A single case record linked the QMS nonconformance, the SRM supplier record, the originating purchase order and lot/serial, and a secure evidence store. Email ingestion and portal uploads flowed into the case automatically, with redaction and access controls. Supplier commitments, 8D timelines, and internal approvals were captured as structured steps. The workflow respected aerospace quality requirements and provided a complete trail of who approved what, when, and based on which evidence.

• QMS integration to synchronize nonconformance (NCR) and corrective and preventive action (CAPA) states, aligned with AS9100 expectations.
• SRM integration to surface open claims and supplier commitments on supplier profiles, and to track response timeliness and containment status.
• ERP linkage for purchase orders, goods receipts, and lot/serial details so cases referenced the exact material movement and affected builds.
• Secure evidence store with immutable options for originals (e.g., object lock) and controlled renditions for external sharing. Reference: Amazon S3 Object Lock.
• Email and portal ingestion that captured supplier replies, photos, and 8D documents into the case automatically, with metadata for search and policy-based redaction.
• Case workflow states and review gates: intake, triage, containment, root cause, corrective action, verification, and closure, with required artifacts at each stage.
• Validation checks to ensure serial/lot trace, inspection results, and supplier acknowledgements were attached before advancing the case.
• Supplier-facing portal view for evidence submission, 8D updates, and acknowledgements, with time stamps and identity binding.
• Dashboards for open claims by program and supplier, stage aging, common root cause categories, and commitments at risk.
• Role-based permissions and SSO so Supplier Quality, Procurement, Engineering, and Legal saw the same case with appropriate access.

Implementation

• Discovery: Mapped current NCR and CAPA flows in the QMS, supplier touchpoints in the SRM, and where inspection results and photos were stored. Cataloged required artifacts by stage and the approval chain for containment and corrective action. Reviewed audit requests to design the trace needed from trigger to closure.
• Design: Defined the case data model and identifiers linking PO, receipt, lot/serial, supplier, and program. Designed stage gates and required evidence per AS9100-aligned process. Specified email and portal ingestion patterns, redaction rules, and the evidence storage policy for originals versus shared renditions.
• Build: Integrated the QMS for NCR/CAPA status sync, connected the SRM to display claims and commitments on supplier records, and pulled transactional context from ERP. Implemented the evidence store with object-lock options for immutable originals. Built the case UI, approvals, and supplier portal components, plus email ingestion and metadata tagging.
• Testing and QA: Ran the workflow in shadow mode alongside live claims and compared stage timing and artifact completeness to the old process. Injected edge cases: multi-lot defects, rework dispositions, and supplier name changes. Verified that advancing a case required the correct evidence and that redacted files were used for external sharing.
• Rollout: Started with one program and a small set of strategic suppliers. Enabled email ingestion and evidence capture first, then the supplier portal. Turned on closure gating after teams confirmed artifacts and approvals were behaving as designed. Expanded to additional plants and suppliers incrementally.
• Training and hand-off: Delivered role-based sessions for Supplier Quality on case handling, for Procurement on supplier commitments and escalations, for Engineering on evidence expectations, and for Legal on audit views. Provided suppliers with concise portal guides and a contact path for support.
• Human-in-the-loop review: SQE and Engineering approved root cause and corrective actions; Procurement reviewed supplier commitments; Legal verified evidentiary completeness for sensitive cases. All exceptions required rationale and were logged at the case level.

Results

Claims progressed in a predictable sequence because every artifact and approval lived on the case. Photos, inspection results, 8D steps, and supplier replies were captured once and linked to the correct lot and purchase order. Supplier Quality and Procurement stopped running status meetings just to reconcile versions; they reviewed the same dashboards and case timelines.

Audits and tracebacks became straightforward. Approvers, evidence, and stage transitions were visible in one place, aligned to the company’s quality manual. Suppliers saw clear expectations and could upload required materials without long email threads. Manufacturing Engineering and Program Management gained clarity on containment and verification, which reduced back-and-forth and rework.

What Changed for the Team

• Before: Evidence and replies scattered across email and shares; After: Centralized case with linked artifacts and immutable originals.
• Before: Status tracked in meetings and spreadsheets; After: Dashboards and case timelines shared by Quality, Procurement, and Engineering.
• Before: Manual checks to close NCRs; After: Stage gates that required specific documents and approvals.
• Before: Supplier commitments buried in threads; After: SRM-linked commitments with due dates and acknowledgements.
• Before: Re-entered PO and lot details; After: Automatic linkage to ERP receipts, serials, and affected builds.
• Before: Redaction handled ad hoc; After: Policy-based renditions for external sharing with originals retained for audit.

Key Takeaways

• Create a single case record that links QMS, SRM, and transactional data; let systems of record do their jobs, but orchestrate the workflow in one place.
• Capture and govern evidence once, with immutable storage for originals and redacted copies for sharing.
• Define stage gates and required artifacts aligned to AS9100 and your quality manual so closures are consistent and auditable.
• Integrate supplier participation through structured acknowledgements and uploads rather than extended email threads.
• Run the new workflow in shadow mode first, then phase in gating to build trust while protecting throughput.
• Make dashboards the default status view so recurring alignment meetings focus on decisions, not data gathering.

FAQ

What tools did this integrate with?
The workflow synchronized nonconformance and corrective action states with the existing QMS, surfaced claims and commitments in the SRM, and pulled purchase order, receipt, and lot/serial context from the ERP. Evidence was stored in a secure repository with options for immutable retention (for example, S3 Object Lock). The overall process aligned to aerospace expectations under AS9100.

How did you handle quality control and governance?
We codified stage gates for intake, containment, root cause, corrective action, verification, and closure. Each gate required specific artifacts and approvals. Evidence handling followed a policy: originals retained immutably, redacted renditions for sharing. Supplier acknowledgements and 8D steps were captured as structured data. All actions were logged with identity, timestamps, and rationale at the case level.

How did you roll this out without disruption?
We ran in shadow mode alongside live claims to validate mappings and evidence capture. The first phase enabled evidence ingestion and dashboards, then we introduced supplier portal uploads. Closure gating and strict approvals came last, after teams confirmed the workflow matched the quality manual. Existing QMS, SRM, and ERP remained in place throughout.

How were suppliers brought into the process?
Suppliers received portal access tied to the SRM contact and could upload photos, inspection records, and 8D documents directly to the case. They acknowledged containment and corrective action milestones with time stamps. For suppliers unable to use the portal, email ingestion captured replies and attachments into the same case record.

How did you ensure audit readiness?
The case record held the complete chain: triggering event, linked PO/lot, evidence originals and renditions, approvals at each stage, supplier acknowledgements, and final verification. Immutable storage protected originals, and the workflow enforced required artifacts before closure. Auditors could navigate from supplier to case to evidence without collecting files from inboxes and shares.