How many quality decisions are still based on gut feeling?

Using data and trends to set better-informed priorities

Imagine several suppliers have recorded non-conformities in the last quarter, but your available resources allow for only one additional audit.

Which supplier should you audit first?

The same question arises when deciding which corrective actions should take priority, where controls need to be increased, or which issue deserves closer attention.

Experience matters a great deal in these situations. But relying only on what we remember, the latest issue that emerged, or whatever seems most urgent at the time can provide an incomplete picture.

Looking at how problems evolve over time can change that perspective.

A supplier with relatively few issues may have recorded all of them in the last two months. An apparently isolated problem may already have occurred five times. A department that seems to be under control may be taking progressively longer to close non-conformities.

These are all signals that can change priorities when they are identified early enough.

When you cannot address everything at once

Let’s go back to the suppliers in our initial example.

The first recorded two non-conformities over the last twelve months, both resolved quickly with no recurrence. The second recorded five, four of them in the last quarter. The third recorded three, all related to the same critical product characteristic.

Looking only at the total number of non-conformities might make the answer seem straightforward. But deciding which supplier to audit also requires considering severity, frequency, recurrence, response times, and the outcome of actions already taken.

The picture becomes more complicated when this information is not readily available.

“That supplier caused problems last year too.”

Probably. But how many? What kind? Were they resolved? Did they occur again?

If answering these questions means retrieving different reports, opening Excel files, reconstructing the history of corrective actions, or relying on the memory of the person who has worked with that supplier the longest, the assessment inevitably becomes more difficult.

It can also be influenced by the most recent incident, the issue that created the greatest pressure, or simply the data that is easiest to retrieve.

Having a broader view of past performance makes it possible to compare different situations before deciding where to allocate time and resources.

Priorities also need to be explained

An additional supply chain audit, more frequent inspections on a production line, or any other request for additional resources often involves different stakeholders across the business, including Procurement, Production, Operations, and senior management.

The Quality Manager therefore needs to explain why one issue deserves attention before another.

Saying that “we’re concerned about this supplier” may be a sound assessment based on years of experience. Being able to show that non-conformities have increased over the last three months, repeatedly involve the same characteristic, or are taking longer to close makes that assessment easier to share with others.

The discussion can then focus on priorities and resource allocation, based on verifiable information that is also clear to people looking at the process from a different perspective.

Spotting changes before they become bigger problems

Customer complaints, scrap, or production downtime are often the point at which an issue becomes clearly visible, even though the first warning signs may have appeared weeks or months earlier.

Identifying those signals requires tracking relevant indicators over time and recognising changes that can easily go unnoticed in day-to-day operations.

One additional non-conformity may not mean much on its own. A steady increase in the same type of issue over three consecutive months tells a different story.

Trend analysis can help identify these shifts while their impact is still limited, leaving time to bring forward an inspection, investigate a possible cause, or intervene in the process.

What to monitor when setting priorities

Audits, inspections, non-conformities, and corrective actions already generate a large amount of information. When these data are spread across different systems, reports, and files, comparing them and using them to support decisions takes time.

Business Intelligence applied to quality management makes it possible to bring this information together and analyse it, highlighting trends, recurring issues, and potential areas of concern.

A dashboard can provide a consolidated view of indicators that help put a decision into context, including:

• non-conformity trends, considering volume, severity, and type;
• recurring issues, to identify problems that continue to occur after action has been taken;
• supplier performance, comparing periods, sites, or supply categories;
• management and closure times, to identify delays or activities that are beginning to accumulate;
• corrective action effectiveness, by reviewing what happens after actions have been implemented;
• the distribution of quality issues, to understand where they are concentrated by process, department, product, or business area.

Filters and time-based comparisons make it possible to investigate an anomaly without having to prepare a separate analysis each time.

If an indicator changes, the Quality Manager can narrow the time period, identify which events affected the result, and determine whether it is an isolated occurrence or a pattern that deserves attention.

Data do not replace experience

Charts and indicators can highlight changes, recurring issues, and anomalies. Understanding how significant they are still requires knowledge of the context.

Processes, critical product characteristics, production changes, supplier reliability, and potential consequences for the customer all influence the assessment.

Two numerically similar trends can therefore lead to very different priorities.

An increase in issues affecting a secondary characteristic, for example, carries a different weight from the same pattern appearing in a critical component. Similarly, deterioration following a process change calls for different checks from a variation with no immediately identifiable cause.

If experience suggests that a process is deteriorating or a supplier needs closer attention, the data can show when the change began, which issues are involved, how frequently they occur, and how widespread the problem is.

The analysis may confirm that perception or show that an issue initially considered a priority is less significant than expected.

So, which supplier should you audit first?

Ultimately, someone has to make the decision, and that decision will always depend on the Quality Manager’s knowledge of suppliers, processes, and the company’s quality issues.

What matters is the information available at the moment the decision is made.

Being able to review what has happened over time, compare periods, identify recurring issues, and check the outcome of previous actions provides a more complete picture, without relying solely on memory or having to reconstruct information from different sources every time.

With Audit Manager, data generated by audits, inspections, non-conformities, and corrective actions remain organised and available for review, comparison, and analysis whenever priorities need to be set.

Experience remains with the people who know the processes. Data provide concrete evidence to support it.

Discover how Audit Manager supports quality data analysis and decision-making.

Frequently Asked Questions