A method and system for supplier matching based on part grade

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of supplier matching method and system based on part grade, belong to supply chain management technical field, the present scheme is by part risk score and part grade association, and for different part grade setting allow to select supplier pool and each pool corresponding score threshold, so that computer system can first according to pool attribution and score threshold screening supplier, again to the candidate supplier that meets requirement calculation matching degree, thus avoid other evaluation project high score offset required access restriction of part grade, different supplier pool respectively set score dimension and weight, can make supplier score and its resource pool positioning correspond, avoid with single standard measure two kinds of positioning different supplier, and with spare part classification and supplier minimum score as hard constraint and carry out access filtering, again with matching degree formula and carry out soft optimization, both lock safety bottom line from system level, and realize the comprehensive optimization of cost and delivery in qualified range.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of supply chain management technology, specifically to a supplier matching method and system based on part level. Background Technology

[0002] In the supply of general aviation power components, different components differ in terms of flight safety impact, airworthiness control requirements and processing technology. Different suppliers also differ in terms of quality systems, power matching experience, delivery capabilities and cost response.

[0003] However, the traditional military supply chain adopts a unified and strongly controlled model, with all components subject to the same complex approval and inspection process. This is directly applied to the multi-variety, discrete, and small-batch business of general aviation power, resulting in a large amount of management redundancy, increasing procurement costs, and lengthening delivery cycles. Furthermore, the military and civilian supplier systems have long been simply physically isolated with no differentiated scoring models, leading to civilian suppliers being "unwilling to use and unable to manage" their products, while military suppliers have been unable to effectively resolve the contradiction of "high costs and slow response" for small orders.

[0004] Based on this, the present invention designs a supplier matching method and system based on part level to solve the above problems. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This invention provides a supplier matching method and system based on component level to solve the technical problem in the existing technology of military product supply chain adopting a unified and strong control model, and the long-term simple physical isolation between the military and civilian supplier systems.

[0006] According to one aspect of the present invention, a supplier matching method based on part grade is provided, executed by a computer system, comprising: acquiring and parsing a part order to obtain a part identifier and order parameters; querying a database based on the part identifier to obtain a part grade determined by a part risk score, as well as a pool of suppliers allowed to be selected for the part grade and a scoring threshold for each supplier pool; for a part grade that allows selection of multiple supplier pools, the required scoring thresholds are different in different supplier pools; screening candidate suppliers from the pools of suppliers whose supplier scores are not lower than the corresponding scoring thresholds; calculating a matching degree based on the order parameters and the candidate supplier parameters, and sorting the candidate suppliers according to the matching degree to determine a target supplier.

[0007] As a further aspect of the present invention, the part grade is determined by the following method: obtaining attribute scores for the part's flight safety impact, airworthiness control level, process complexity, severity of failure consequences, and supply chain maturity; weighting the attribute scores according to preset weights to obtain a risk score; and determining the part grade based on the threshold range of the risk score.

[0008] As a further aspect of the present invention, the supplier pool includes a first supplier pool and a second supplier pool; the admission criteria for the first supplier pool include having aviation quality management system qualifications and having experience in supporting aviation power or military power; the admission criteria for the second supplier pool include completing basic aviation quality training and passing sample identification and small-batch trial supply assessment; the part grades include A, B and C grades from high to low risk, A-grade parts are only allowed to be selected from the first supplier pool, B-grade parts are allowed to be selected from both the first and second supplier pools, and C-grade parts are only allowed to be selected from the second supplier pool.

[0009] As a further aspect of the present invention, the scoring dimensions of the first supplier pool include quality pass rate, airworthiness qualification compliance, on-time delivery rate, technical support capability, and cost competitiveness; the scoring dimensions of the second supplier pool include quality pass rate, on-time delivery rate, cost competitiveness, response speed, and basic aviation quality capability; each supplier pool is configured with the weight of each scoring dimension, and the scores of each scoring dimension are weighted and summed to obtain the supplier score.

[0010] As a further aspect of the present invention, for Class A parts, only suppliers with a supplier score of not less than 75 points in the first supplier pool are allowed to be selected; for Class B parts, suppliers with a supplier score of not less than 70 points in the first supplier pool and suppliers with a supplier score of not less than 80 points in the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected; for Class C parts, only suppliers with a supplier score of not less than 60 points in the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected.

[0011] As a further aspect of the present invention, the matching degree is calculated according to the following formula: K=α×Sp+β×Dm+γ×Cm-δ×Pr; Where K is the matching degree, Sp is the supplier score, Dm is the delivery capability matching degree, Cm is the cost matching degree, Pr is the risk penalty factor, and α, β, γ and δ are non-negative weighting coefficients; Dm is determined based on the relationship between the supplier's promised delivery date and the order's required delivery date, Cm is determined based on the deviation between the supplier's quotation and the order's target cost, and Pr is determined based on the supplier's historical quality anomalies and delay records.

[0012] As a further aspect of the present invention, the order parameters include order batch size, iterative modification marker, and delivery cycle requirements; for large-volume orders of B-level parts, the first supplier pool is used as the preferred selection pool; for discrete small-volume orders of B-level parts or orders with iterative modification markers, suppliers in the second supplier pool that have passed the small-volume trial supply assessment are included in the allowed selection range.

[0013] As a further aspect of this invention, after identifying the target supplier, the corresponding control process is invoked according to the part level. The control process for level A parts includes drawing review, process approval, first article inspection, process inspection, full-item factory inspection, and full batch traceability archiving. The control process for level B parts is selected based on order batch and iterative modification markers. The control process for discrete small-batch orders includes sample confirmation, key process sampling inspection, and batch traceability. The control process for level C parts includes sample confirmation and arrival sampling inspection.

[0014] As a further aspect of the present invention, supplier scores and order acceptance status are updated according to a preset evaluation cycle; for suppliers in the second supplier pool that meet the upgrade conditions, their supplier pool affiliation is adjusted after they pass the access review of the first supplier pool; for suppliers in the first supplier pool that meet the downgrade conditions, the part grades they can undertake are restricted or they are removed from the supplier pool; for suppliers that are in a rectification suspension state or elimination state, as well as suppliers that have safety-related quality defects in Class A parts, new orders are prohibited from being allocated, and they are excluded during the candidate supplier screening.

[0015] A supplier matching system based on part level includes a memory and a processor. The memory stores a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program, it implements the aforementioned supplier matching method based on part level.

[0016] The present invention has the following beneficial effects: This solution links component risk scores to component grades and sets allowed supplier pools and corresponding scoring thresholds for different component grades. This allows the computer system to first screen suppliers based on pool affiliation and scoring thresholds, and then calculate the matching degree for qualified candidate suppliers. This avoids high scores in other evaluation items offsetting the access restrictions required by the component grade. Different supplier pools have separate scoring dimensions and weights, which ensures that supplier scores correspond to their resource pool positioning. This avoids using a single standard to measure two types of suppliers with different positioning. Access filtering is performed using component grade and the lowest supplier score as hard constraints, and soft selection is performed using the matching degree formula. This not only locks in the safety bottom line at the system level, but also achieves the comprehensive optimization of cost and delivery within the acceptable range.

[0017] In addition to the objectives, features, and advantages described above, the present invention has other objectives, features, and advantages. The invention will now be described in further detail with reference to the figures. Attached Figure Description

[0018] The accompanying drawings, which form part of this application, are used to provide a further understanding of the invention. The illustrative embodiments of the invention and their descriptions are used to explain the invention and do not constitute an undue limitation of the invention. In the drawings: Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0019] The embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the present invention can be implemented in many different ways as defined and covered below.

[0020] Please see Figure 1 This invention provides a technical solution: a supplier matching method based on part level, executed by a computer system, comprising: S1, retrieve and parse the part order to obtain the part identifier and order parameters; S2, query the database based on the part identifier to obtain the part level determined by the part risk score, as well as the allowed supplier pools and the scoring thresholds for each supplier pool corresponding to the part level; for part levels that allow selection of multiple supplier pools, the required scoring thresholds are different in different supplier pools. S3, Select candidate suppliers whose supplier scores are not lower than the corresponding score threshold from the pool of allowed suppliers; S4. Calculate the matching degree based on the order parameters and the candidate supplier parameters, sort the candidate suppliers according to the matching degree, and determine the target supplier.

[0021] This solution stores part grades, supplier pool affiliations, supplier ratings, and grade selection criteria in a database. Upon receiving a part order, the corresponding part grade is first located by the part identifier. Then, the available supplier pools and applicable rating thresholds for each pool are determined based on the part grade. Only suppliers that simultaneously meet both pool affiliation and rating thresholds participate in subsequent matching degree calculations. Finally, the target supplier is determined based on the matching degree. By sequentially executing admission screening and optimization ranking, using part grade and rating thresholds as hard constraints for admission filtering, and then using matching degree for soft optimization, this solution both locks in the safety baseline at the system level and achieves the comprehensive optimization of cost and delivery within acceptable limits.

[0022] Specifically, the database contains part records, supplier records, and filtering rule records. Part records include at least part identifier, risk score, and part grade. Supplier records include at least supplier identifier, supplier pool identifier, access review result, and supplier score. Filtering rule records include part grade, allowed supplier pool identifiers, and corresponding scoring thresholds. Part identifiers are used to distinguish parts to be matched, and supplier pool identifiers are used to determine the rules used for supplier scoring. For cases where multiple supplier pools are allowed to be selected at the same grade, the scoring thresholds for each pool are saved separately.

[0023] Specifically, the part grade is determined in the following way: The system obtains attribute scores for the component's flight safety impact, airworthiness control level, process complexity, severity of failure consequences, and supply chain maturity. It then calculates a risk score by weighting each attribute score according to preset weights and determines the component's grade based on the threshold range of the risk score. This example uses general aviation power components as an example. It converts flight safety impact, airworthiness control level, process complexity, severity of failure consequences, and supply chain maturity into attribute scores from 0 to 100, and represents them as S, A, C, F, and M, respectively. The higher the attribute score, the higher the supply risk or control requirements reflected in the corresponding dimension. The supply chain maturity score using exclusive supply is higher than the score using standardized multi-source supply.

[0024] In this example, the flight safety impact scores for components directly affecting flight safety, components affecting power performance, and components with only auxiliary functions are 100, 70, and 30 points, respectively; the airworthiness control level scores for critical airworthiness components, important airworthiness components, and general components are 100, 60, and 30 points, respectively; the process complexity scores for single crystal or precision casting, precision machining, and ordinary machining are 100, 70, and 40 points, respectively; the scores for catastrophic, severe, and minor failure consequences are 100, 70, and 30 points, respectively; and the supply chain maturity scores for exclusive supply, limited supply, and standardized multi-source supply are 100, 60, and 20 points, respectively. The risk score R is calculated using the following formula: R=0.35×S+0.25×A+0.15×C+0.15×F+0.10×M; The risk score is used to set up a classification range: when R is not lower than 75, it is classified as a Class A core critical component; when R is not lower than 50 but lower than 75, it is classified as a Class B important general component; when R is lower than 50, it is classified as a Class C ordinary auxiliary component. This classification relationship is arranged from high to low risk, and the level is not interpreted by the size of the letter.

[0025] By considering the safety impact, control requirements, process characteristics, failure consequences and supply conditions of each part separately, and then performing weighted classification, the classification of different parts can have a common calculation basis. Unlike traditional manual qualitative classification, it has good classification consistency, can be executed in batches, and can be implemented systematically, solving the engineering pain points of low efficiency and inconsistent standards of manual classification. The weights and thresholds in this example are used to illustrate one implementation method. In other implementation methods, while keeping the evaluation dimensions and risk directions consistent, the weights and grading thresholds can be configured according to the product characteristics, and the configuration and calculation results can be saved together.

[0026] Taking the turbine guide vanes of a certain type of turboshaft engine as an example, risk assessment of the components is conducted: Flight safety impact S=100 (directly affects power output and flight safety); Airworthiness control level A=100 (airworthiness critical components); Process complexity C=100 (precision casting + single crystal blade); Failure severity F=100 (blade failure can lead to in-flight shutdown, a catastrophic consequence). Supply chain maturity M=100 (only a few domestic manufacturers have mass production capabilities, almost exclusive).

[0027] Calculate: R = 0.35×100 + 0.25×100 + 0.15×100 + 0.15×100 + 0.10×100 = 100 points.

[0028] R=100≥75, judged as a Class A core critical component, and forcibly matched to the military product qualification supplier pool.

[0029] Taking the wiring terminals of a certain type of aviation hybrid motor as an example: S=30, A=30, C=40, F=30, M=20; R = 0.35×30 + 0.25×30 + 0.15×40 + 0.15×30 + 0.10×20 = 10.5 + 7.5 + 6 + 4.5 + 2 = 30.5 points.

[0030] R=30.5<50, it is determined to be a Class C ordinary auxiliary part, and it is directly matched with the civilian market supplier pool.

[0031] Specifically, the supplier pool includes a first supplier pool and a second supplier pool. The entry requirements for the first supplier pool include having aviation quality management system qualifications and having experience in supporting aviation power or military power. The entry requirements for the second supplier pool include completing basic aviation quality training and passing sample identification and small-batch trial supply assessment. In this example, the first supplier pool is used to store supplier records with aviation quality systems and corresponding power supply experience. Figure 1 The first pool corresponds to the military-grade supplier pool, while the second pool stores records of market-oriented suppliers who have completed basic aviation quality training, sample evaluation, and small-batch trial supply assessments. Figure 1 The corresponding civilian market-oriented supplier pool, the aviation quality management system qualification of the first supplier pool can use AS9100 quality management system certification as the audit item, and the supporting resumes are audited according to the aviation power or military power project records. By managing suppliers with different access conditions separately, the capability boundaries of various types of suppliers can be preserved.

[0032] Specifically, the scoring dimensions for the first supplier pool include quality pass rate, airworthiness qualification compliance, on-time delivery rate, technical support capabilities, and cost competitiveness; the scoring dimensions for the second supplier pool include quality pass rate, on-time delivery rate, cost competitiveness, response speed, and basic aviation quality capabilities; each supplier pool is assigned a weight for each scoring dimension, and the scores for each scoring dimension are weighted and summed to obtain the supplier score. In this example, each scoring dimension uses a score from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the performance. The quality pass rate can be converted into a percentage score based on the ratio of the number of qualified parts to the number of inspected parts within the evaluation period. The on-time delivery rate can be converted into a percentage score based on the ratio of the number of orders delivered on time to the number of orders delivered. The remaining dimensions are converted into percentage scores according to the pre-set scoring table based on the results of the corresponding qualification review, technical evaluation, quotation comparison, response time and quality basic assessment.

[0033] Supplier scores in the first supplier pool are calculated using the following formula: SM=0.35×Q+0.25×H+0.15×D+0.15×T+0.10×P; Among them, Q is the quality pass rate score, H is the airworthiness qualification compliance score, D is the delivery on-time rate score, T is the technical support capability score, and P is the cost competitiveness score. The first supplier pool assigns higher weights to the quality pass rate and airworthiness qualification compliance to reflect its aviation power support positioning. Supplier scores in the second supplier pool are calculated using the following formula: SC=0.30×Q+0.25×D+0.20×P+0.15×Rsp+0.10×Abase; Among them, Q, D and P correspond to the aforementioned quality pass rate, on-time delivery rate and cost competitiveness, respectively. Rsp is the response speed score, Abase is the aviation quality basic capability score. The second supplier pool considers delivery, cost and response capability while retaining quality requirements, and its scoring rules are different from those of the first supplier pool. By setting separate scoring dimensions and weights for the two types of suppliers, the scoring results can reflect the evaluation focus of their respective resource pools, avoiding the use of a single standard to measure two types of suppliers with different positioning.

[0034] Specifically, for Class A parts, only suppliers with a score of 75 or higher from the first supplier pool are allowed to be selected; for Class B parts, suppliers with a score of 70 or higher from the first supplier pool and suppliers with a score of 80 or higher from the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected; and for Class C parts, only suppliers with a score of 60 or higher from the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected. In this example, the grade filtering rules are saved as a combination of "part grade, supplier pool, and scoring threshold". For grade A parts, the database query conditions are limited to the first supplier pool and the supplier score is not lower than 75 points. Records from other supplier pools are not included in the candidate set. For grade B parts, records with a score of not lower than 70 points in the first supplier pool and records with a score of not lower than 80 points in the second supplier pool are queried respectively. For grade C parts, records with a score of not lower than 60 points in the second supplier pool are queried.

[0035] Specifically, for Class A parts, the selection rule only allows the first supplier pool. Even if a supplier in the second supplier pool has a higher overall score or a lower price, it will not participate in the matching and ranking of Class A parts. For Class B parts, the scoring thresholds of the two pools are used respectively, and the same threshold is not used to replace the thresholds of the two pools. This makes the scoring screening correspond to the differentiated evaluation method. The aforementioned scoring threshold is a necessary condition for entering the candidate range. For situations where order acceptance status management is implemented simultaneously, the normal order acceptance status must also be met. The priority of suspension of order acceptance, elimination, and quality veto rules is higher than the scoring threshold. Therefore, setting a pool threshold of 60 points for C-level parts does not mean that suppliers with scores of 60 to 69 points who are in a rectification suspension state can continue to accept new orders.

[0036] Specifically, the matching degree is calculated according to the following formula: K=α×Sp+β×Dm+γ×Cm-δ×Pr; Where K is the matching degree, Sp is the supplier score, Dm is the delivery capability matching degree, Cm is the cost matching degree, Pr is the risk penalty factor, and α, β, γ and δ are non-negative weight coefficients; Dm is determined based on the relationship between the supplier's promised delivery date and the order's required delivery date, Cm is determined based on the deviation between the supplier's quotation and the order's target cost, and Pr is determined based on the supplier's historical quality anomalies and delay records. Specifically, after completing the screening of admission, order status, and pool scoring thresholds, the matching degree of suppliers in this round of candidate set is calculated. The supplier score reflects its comprehensive performance during the evaluation period, the delivery capability matching degree reflects the degree of adaptation to the current order's delivery time requirement, the cost matching degree reflects the degree of adaptation of the quotation to the current order's target cost, and the risk penalty factor is used to reduce the ranking position of suppliers with historical quality abnormalities or delay records.

[0037] In this example, α, β, γ and δ are set to 0.50, 0.20, 0.20 and 0.10 respectively. Supplier score, delivery capability matching degree and cost matching degree are positive evaluation items, and risk penalty factor is a deduction item. Each item participates in the calculation according to the set weight. The matching degree is used for ranking within the current candidate set.

[0038] Regarding the delivery capability matching degree, in one specific implementation, To represents the required delivery period of the order, and Ts represents the promised delivery period of the supplier. Both use the same time unit and are both greater than 0. When Ts is not greater than To, the delivery capability matching degree is 100 points. When Ts is greater than To, the ratio of the required delivery period to the promised delivery period decreases, as calculated by the following formula: ; Regarding cost matching, in one specific implementation, Co represents the target cost of the order, and Cs represents the supplier's quotation. Co is greater than 0 and both use the same pricing caliber. When the quotation is not higher than the target cost, it scores 100 points. When the quotation is higher than the target cost, it is deducted according to the proportion of the excess to the target cost, with a minimum score of 0 points. The calculation formula is as follows: ; Regarding the risk penalty factor, in one specific implementation, deduction values ​​are configured for general quality anomaly records and delay records within a preset statistical window. The deduction values ​​are accumulated and limited to 0 to 100 points. For example, each general quality anomaly record and each delay record is scored as 5 points. When the accumulated deduction exceeds 100 points, it is counted as 100 points. When a safety-related quality defect of a Class A part occurs, a quality veto is directly executed, and the general deduction is not used as an alternative to elimination. The above delivery, cost and deduction conversion methods are optional implementation examples and can be uniformly configured for comparison of candidate suppliers in the same round.

[0039] Furthermore, the candidate suppliers who have completed the calculation are sorted from high to low according to their matching degree. The supplier with the highest matching degree is selected as the target supplier. In this example, the supplier with the highest matching degree is selected as the main supplier. The other qualified suppliers can be reserved as alternative records. In the case of the same matching degree, the suppliers can be compared in turn according to the matching degree of delivery capability and the supplier score, and the sorting rules in the same round should be kept consistent.

[0040] Specifically, order parameters include order batch size, iterative modification marker, and delivery cycle requirements; for large-volume orders of B-level parts, the first supplier pool will be the preferred selection pool; for discrete small-volume orders of B-level parts or orders with iterative modification markers, suppliers in the second supplier pool that have passed the small-volume trial supply assessment will be included in the allowed selection range. In this example, order batch size is used to distinguish between standardized large-batch orders and discrete small-batch orders. Iterative modification markers are used to identify orders where the part design or process is in an iterative state. Delivery cycle requirements are used to calculate the delivery capability matching degree. The division between large batch and small batch is based on pre-configured batch limits or order type fields. For standardized large-batch orders of Class B parts, the first supplier pool is used as the priority matching range for this round. The matching degree is calculated among candidate suppliers that meet the thresholds in the pool. For discrete small-batch or iterative modification orders, suppliers that have passed the small-batch trial supply assessment and meet the scoring thresholds of the second supplier pool are included in the selectable range. Within the allowed candidate range, they are still sorted according to the same matching degree calculation method. The pool admission verification is not replaced by order type adjustment.

[0041] By further considering order batch size and iteration characteristics within the risk level constraints, supplier selection can be adapted to the degree of finalization and batch size of the order. When there are no qualified candidates in the priority matching range, the scoring threshold is not relaxed. When backup suppliers need to be enabled, they are re-selected according to the backup rules of the corresponding part level.

[0042] Furthermore, after identifying the target supplier, the corresponding control process is invoked according to the part level. The control process for level A parts includes drawing review, process approval, first article inspection, process inspection, full-item factory inspection, and full batch traceability archiving; the control process for level B parts is selected based on order batch and iterative modification markers, with the control process for discrete small batch orders including sample confirmation, key process sampling inspection, and batch traceability; the control process for level C parts includes sample confirmation and incoming sampling inspection. In this example, the control process for Class A parts includes drawing review, process approval, first article inspection, process inspection, full-item factory inspection, and full batch traceability archiving. The control process for Class B parts is selected based on order batch and iterative modification markers. The control process for discrete small-batch orders includes sample confirmation, key process sampling inspection, and batch traceability. The control process for Class C parts includes sample confirmation and arrival sampling inspection.

[0043] Specifically, the database stores process templates corresponding to different part grades and order types. After the target supplier is determined, the part order, the target supplier and the selected process template are associated, and corresponding processing nodes are generated. Each node receives drawing review, process approval, sample identification, inspection and archiving results so that the matching results can enter the subsequent control process.

[0044] For Class A parts, the following nodes are set sequentially: drawing review, process approval, first article inspection, process inspection, full-item factory inspection, and full batch traceability archiving. For Class B parts with large-volume finalized orders, a pre-set simplified military quality control process is invoked, such as retaining the drawing confirmation, first article confirmation, key process inspection, and batch archiving nodes. For Class B parts with discrete small-batch or iterative modification orders, the sample confirmation, key process sampling inspection, and batch traceability nodes are invoked. For Class C parts, the sample confirmation and arrival sampling inspection nodes are invoked. Under the same system, three differentiated process engines are used. Class A / B / C parts execute three different processes: full-strength control, flexible hybrid, and simplified market-oriented, respectively. The process nodes are configurable, and orders are automatically routed to the corresponding processes, avoiding the management redundancy caused by a one-size-fits-all approach to military product processes. This is adapted to the characteristics of general aviation power, which involves multiple varieties, discrete small batches, and frequent iterative modifications.

[0045] Furthermore, supplier scores and order status are updated according to a preset evaluation cycle; for suppliers in the second supplier pool who meet the upgrade conditions, their supplier pool affiliation is adjusted after they pass the access review of the first supplier pool; for suppliers in the first supplier pool who meet the downgrade conditions, the part grades they can undertake are restricted or they are removed from the supplier pool; for suppliers that are in a rectification suspension or elimination state, as well as suppliers that have safety-related quality defects in Class A parts, new orders are prohibited from being allocated, and they are excluded during the candidate supplier screening. In this example, the evaluation period is one quarter. A supplier with a score of 85 or higher is rated as excellent; a score of 70 or higher but below 85 is rated as qualified; a score of 60 or higher but below 70 is rated as a warning; and a score below 60 is rated as elimination. Suppliers in the second supplier pool can enter the first supplier pool's candidate review process if their scores are 85 or higher for two consecutive quarters and no quality incidents occur during that period. Only after passing the review of access projects such as the aviation quality management system will their supplier pool affiliation be updated. Meeting the upgrade criteria only triggers the review process and does not directly replace the access criteria of the first supplier pool. If a supplier in the first supplier pool scores below 70 for two consecutive quarters, or if their delivery or cost fails to meet the preset assessment requirements, the level of parts they can undertake will be restricted, or they will be removed from the resource pool. Upgrading and downgrading are triggered entirely by quantitative scoring, rather than by subjective human judgment, thereby achieving continuous cultivation of civilian supplier capabilities and dynamic optimization of supply resources.

[0046] The supplier will be issued a rectification notice and enter a rectification suspension state. No new orders will be assigned during the rectification period. After the rectification is completed, the supplier will be re-evaluated and the order status will be updated. The supplier can re-enter the candidate range for new orders only after the conditions for recovery are met. If the rectification is not up to standard or the score is below 60, the supplier will be eliminated. Backup screening will be initiated for orders that need to be fulfilled. If a safety-related quality defect of a Class A part is found, the supplier will be eliminated directly, regardless of other evaluation items and the overall score.

[0047] By saving the order status and scoring results separately, it is possible to avoid mistaking "meeting the minimum scoring threshold for a certain order" as "being allowed to accept new orders". During the screening process, records of rectification suspension, elimination, and quality rejection are excluded first, and then the pool affiliation and scoring conditions are determined. Even if the scoring threshold for C-level parts is 60 points, suppliers in the early warning rectification period cannot be restored to new order allocation.

[0048] Furthermore, the system monitors the target supplier's capacity, delivery progress, and quality anomaly information in real time. When the target supplier has insufficient capacity, delivery delays, or quality anomalies, it filters candidate suppliers according to the supplier pool corresponding to the part grade and the scoring threshold, and determines the alternative target supplier from the selected candidate suppliers.

[0049] Specifically, the computer system receives supplier capacity reports, production progress updates, and quality anomaly records. It compares the available capacity with the quantity of orders that still need to be completed, compares the production progress and estimated completion time with the order delivery date, and reads the quality anomaly status associated with the corresponding supplier or order. When the available capacity is insufficient, the estimated or actual delivery exceeds the required time, or there is a confirmed quality anomaly, backup screening is triggered.

[0050] The backup screening uses the same grading rules, supplier pool range, and scoring thresholds for the parts to be processed, and excludes the original target suppliers and suppliers that do not have normal order-accepting status. For the candidate suppliers that meet the conditions, the matching degree can be recalculated according to the updated remaining quantity, delivery date, and quotation parameters to determine the alternative target suppliers. If there are no candidate suppliers that meet the conditions, the pending results are output, and the supplier pool prohibited by the grading rules is not automatically called.

[0051] By maintaining the original level of constraints after a supply disruption, it is possible to avoid skipping supplier eligibility criteria during backup and replacement processes to meet delivery deadlines. Recalculating the matching degree using remaining order requirements also ensures that alternative options reflect the actual order demand after the disruption.

[0052] Specifically, alternative suppliers for Class A parts are selected only from the first supplier pool, alternative suppliers for Class B parts are allowed to switch between the first and second supplier pools, and alternative suppliers for Class C parts are selected only from the second supplier pool.

[0053] The present invention also provides a supplier matching system based on part level, including a memory and a processor. The memory stores a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program, it implements the aforementioned supplier matching method based on part level.

[0054] Specifically, the memory is used to store computer programs, part grade records, supplier records, screening rule records, matching results, and process records; when the processor executes the computer program, it parses the order, calls the corresponding data, completes the access scope query, scoring threshold screening, and matching degree sorting, and performs grade control, evaluation update, and backup switching when the corresponding functions are configured. The system can be deployed in a supplier relationship management platform or implemented by computer equipment with data storage and program execution capabilities.

[0055] The above are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention. Various modifications and variations can be made to the present invention by those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A supplier matching method based on part level, characterized in that, Executed by a computer system, including: Retrieve and parse the parts order to obtain the parts identifier and order parameters; The database is queried based on the part identifier to obtain the part level determined by the part risk score, as well as the allowed supplier pools and the scoring thresholds for each supplier pool corresponding to the part level; for part levels that allow selection of multiple supplier pools, the required scoring thresholds are different in different supplier pools. Select candidate suppliers whose scores are not lower than the corresponding score threshold from the pool of allowed suppliers; The matching degree is calculated based on the order parameters and the candidate supplier parameters, and the candidate suppliers are sorted according to the matching degree to determine the target supplier.

2. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 1, characterized in that, The part grade is determined in the following way: Obtain attribute scores for the component's flight safety impact, airworthiness control level, process complexity, severity of failure consequences, and supply chain maturity. The risk score is obtained by weighting the scores of each attribute according to the preset weights, and the part grade is determined according to the threshold range in which the risk score is located.

3. The supplier matching method based on part level according to claim 1, characterized in that: The supplier pool includes a first supplier pool and a second supplier pool; The eligibility criteria for the first supplier pool include having an aviation quality management system qualification and having experience in supporting aviation power or military power. The eligibility criteria for the second supplier pool include completing basic aviation quality training and passing sample evaluation and small-batch trial supply assessment. The parts are classified into three levels, A, B and C, from highest to lowest risk. Level A parts can only be selected from the first supplier pool, Level B parts can be selected from both the first and second supplier pools, and Level C parts can only be selected from the second supplier pool.

4. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 3, characterized in that: The scoring dimensions for the first supplier pool include quality pass rate, airworthiness qualification compliance, on-time delivery rate, technical support capabilities, and cost competitiveness. The scoring dimensions for the second supplier pool include quality pass rate, on-time delivery rate, cost competitiveness, response speed, and basic aviation quality capabilities. Each supplier pool is configured with weights for each scoring dimension, and the scores for each scoring dimension are weighted and summed to obtain the supplier score.

5. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 4, characterized in that: For Grade A parts, only suppliers with a score of 75 or higher from the first supplier pool are allowed to be selected; for Grade B parts, suppliers with a score of 70 or higher from the first supplier pool and suppliers with a score of 80 or higher from the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected; for Grade C parts, only suppliers with a score of 60 or higher from the second supplier pool are allowed to be selected.

6. The supplier matching method based on part level according to claim 1, characterized in that: The matching degree is calculated according to the following formula: K = α × Sp + β × Dm + γ × Cm - δ × Pr Where K is the matching degree, Sp is the supplier score, Dm is the delivery capability matching degree, Cm is the cost matching degree, Pr is the risk penalty factor, and α, β, γ and δ are non-negative weighting coefficients; Dm is determined based on the relationship between the supplier's promised delivery date and the order's required delivery date, Cm is determined based on the deviation between the supplier's quotation and the order's target cost, and Pr is determined based on the supplier's historical quality anomalies and delay records.

7. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 3, characterized in that: The order parameters include order batch size, iterative modification flag, and delivery cycle requirements; For large-volume orders of Class B parts, the first supplier pool will be the preferred selection pool; for discrete small-volume orders of Class B parts or orders with iterative modification markings, suppliers from the second supplier pool that have passed the small-volume trial supply assessment will be included in the allowed selection range.

8. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 3, characterized in that: After identifying the target supplier, the corresponding control process is invoked according to the part level. The control process for level A parts includes drawing review, process approval, first article inspection, process inspection, full-item factory inspection, and full batch traceability archiving. The control process for level B parts is selected based on the order batch and iterative modification mark. The control process for discrete small batch orders includes sample confirmation, key process sampling inspection, and batch traceability. The control process for level C parts includes sample confirmation and arrival sampling inspection.

9. The supplier matching method based on part grade according to claim 3, characterized in that: Supplier ratings and order status are updated according to a preset evaluation cycle; For suppliers in the second supplier pool who meet the upgrade conditions, their supplier pool affiliation will be adjusted after they pass the access review of the first supplier pool. For suppliers in the first supplier pool that meet the downgrade criteria, restrict the grade of parts they can undertake or remove them from the supplier pool. Suppliers that are in a rectification suspension or elimination state, as well as suppliers with safety-related quality defects in Class A parts, are prohibited from being assigned new orders and will be excluded during the selection of candidate suppliers.

10. A supplier matching system based on part grade, characterized in that: It includes a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, and the processor executing the computer program to implement the supplier matching method according to any one of claims 1-9.

Images