They are related, but they are not the same thing.
In an AS9100 quality management system, the approved supplier list (ASL) is the controlled record of suppliers your organization has determined are acceptable for specified scopes of supply or services. Supplier scorecards are one way to monitor and evaluate ongoing supplier performance. In other words, the scorecard is typically an input to supplier approval and re-evaluation, while the ASL is the formal output of that process.
A supplier can be on the ASL without having a sophisticated scorecard, especially in smaller organizations or lower-volume categories, if the organization has another documented and effective method for evaluation and re-evaluation. Likewise, a supplier can have scorecard data and still remain only conditionally approved, limited by commodity, limited by program, or subject to additional controls. AS9100 does not require a specific scorecard format, threshold, or software tool.
Initial approval: Qualification evidence, risk review, certifications where relevant, capability assessments, trial orders, or first article results may be used before a supplier is placed on the ASL.
Ongoing monitoring: Scorecards often track on-time delivery, quality performance, escapes, responsiveness, corrective action closure, and other metrics defined by the organization.
Periodic re-evaluation: The organization reviews the evidence, including scorecard trends, and decides whether the supplier remains approved, becomes conditional, requires development, or should be removed for a given scope.
Controls and actions: Poor scorecard performance should trigger defined actions such as increased inspection, source inspection, CAPA, limited approval status, or sourcing restrictions, if that is what your procedure requires.
The key point is traceability between the data you collect and the supplier status you assign. If scorecards exist but do not drive any documented review or decision-making, they add little control value.
AS9100 is concerned with externally provided processes, products, and services being controlled using defined criteria. That usually means your organization should be able to show:
how suppliers are approved
how performance is monitored
how often re-evaluation occurs or what event triggers it
what thresholds or risk factors matter
who can change supplier status on the ASL
what records are retained as objective evidence
A scorecard can support all of that, but it does not replace the need for a controlled supplier approval process.
No defined decision rule: Teams collect metrics, but no one knows what score requires escalation, conditional approval, or removal from the ASL.
Poor master data: Supplier names, sites, legal entities, and commodity scopes do not match across ERP, QMS, receiving, and procurement systems, so scorecard results are unreliable.
Scope ambiguity: A supplier may be acceptable for one process or part family but not another. A single yes or no ASL status can hide this.
Manual lag: Quality issues are known in NCR or receiving records, but the ASL is updated late, so buyers continue placing orders.
Metric distortion: A supplier meets delivery metrics by shipping partial quantities or low-risk work first, while quality performance deteriorates.
No change control: Supplier status changes happen by email or spreadsheet without review history, approval traceability, or effective dates.
These problems are common in brownfield environments because supplier data and performance signals often live across ERP, QMS, supplier portals, spreadsheets, and email. If those systems are not aligned, scorecards can look precise while the ASL process remains weak.
In many regulated plants, the ASL is maintained in one system, purchasing transacts in ERP, supplier NCRs sit in QMS, and delivery performance is calculated from receiving or planning data. That coexistence can work, but only if ownership, data mapping, and update timing are explicit.
Trying to replace all supplier, quality, and ERP workflows at once is often a bad strategy in long-lifecycle regulated environments. The qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, and integration complexity are usually high, and the result can be weaker traceability during transition. A more practical approach is often to preserve the system of record for the ASL, connect scorecard inputs from adjacent systems, and put formal review and change control around status decisions.
So the practical answer is: supplier scorecards should inform the approved supplier list, but your documented process must define exactly how. If that linkage is vague, manual, or inconsistent across systems, you should not assume the scorecard by itself demonstrates effective supplier control.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, Connect 981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, C-981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
