An aerospace supplier scorecard should not be built around on-time delivery alone. It should balance delivery, quality, responsiveness, traceability, and risk signals, with definitions tight enough to survive audit scrutiny and system handoffs. The right KPI set depends on part criticality, process maturity, data quality, and how well ERP, MES, QMS, and supplier workflows are integrated.

There is no single correct review cadence. In aerospace, supplier performance data is usually monitored continuously or weekly for critical signals, reviewed monthly for operational control, and reassessed quarterly for strategic decisions. The right frequency depends on part criticality, supplier risk, volume, lead times, data quality, and how well ERP, MES, QMS, and receiving systems are integrated.

Use ISO 22400 as a common KPI definition and governance reference, not as a drop-in contract requirement by itself. In aerospace supply chains, contractual use depends on data availability, system mapping, event discipline, and dispute handling. Poorly specified KPI clauses can create scorecard noise, supplier conflict, and misleading comparisons across plants.

Start with a small set of supplier KPIs that are operationally meaningful, consistently definable, and traceable to source data. In most regulated manufacturing environments, that means standardizing delivery, quality, and responsiveness first, not building a large scorecard. The limiting factor is usually data definitions, event timing, and system integration quality across ERP, QMS, MES, and supplier portals.

Shared execution data shifts supplier performance reviews from periodic, disputed scorecards to continuous, evidence-based collaboration. It can improve fairness and speed of SRM decisions, but only if integrations are robust, data definitions are aligned, and change control, access, and validation are handled carefully across ERP, MES, QMS and supplier portals.