Yes. Suppliers can usually give OEMs live or near-live visibility into FAI travelers without exposing all shop-floor details, but not by giving OEMs unrestricted access to the supplier’s MES or shop-floor systems. The practical pattern is a controlled supplier portal, shared FAI workspace, or API-based data-sharing layer that publishes only agreed traveler fields, inspection status, approvals, exceptions, and evidence needed for the FAI process.
The boundary matters. AS9102 and customer FAI requirements may require objective evidence, traceability, characteristic accountability, and controlled revisions. They do not automatically require an OEM to see every operator note, labor transaction, machine parameter, routing detail, or unrelated customer order moving through the same factory.
What can usually be shared
Commonly shareable FAI traveler visibility includes:
- FAI package status, such as not started, in process, under review, submitted, rejected, or accepted by the customer workflow.
- Operation or inspection milestone completion, when it is meaningful and not misleading.
- Drawing, specification, and planning revision references used for the FAI.
- Characteristic completion status, including required measurements and linked evidence where appropriate.
- Open holds, nonconformances, deviations, concessions, or customer questions tied to the FAI record.
- Approval history, timestamps, reviewer identity, and audit trail data relevant to the shared process.
This level of visibility can reduce status-chasing, but it should still be treated as controlled quality data. It does not guarantee AS9102 acceptance, customer approval, or a favorable audit outcome.
What should normally remain restricted
Suppliers often need to restrict data that is not necessary for the OEM’s FAI review. That may include proprietary work instructions, detailed process parameters, labor and rate data, internal capacity information, other customers’ orders, supplier cost data, and shop-floor comments unrelated to the FAI package.
Controlled technical data is a separate concern. If ITAR, DFARS, CMMC, export-control, or customer-specific handling requirements apply, the visibility model has to enforce access by person, organization, geography, data classification, and purpose. A simple dashboard link is not enough in those cases.
Prerequisites for credible live visibility
Live visibility depends on the maturity of the supplier’s systems and the quality of the integration. At minimum, the supplier needs:
- Clear data ownership between MES, ERP, PLM, QMS, inspection systems, and any FAI platform.
- Role-based access control, preferably with field-level or record-level restrictions where sensitive data is mixed with shareable data.
- Revision control so the OEM can see which drawing, specification, routing, and inspection plan were used.
- Audit trails for status changes, measurement updates, approvals, rejections, and resubmissions.
- Defined rules for when data becomes visible: immediately, after internal review, after quality approval, or only at formal submission.
- Validated interfaces and monitoring so stale or failed integrations are visible instead of silently publishing old status.
In regulated environments, the access model and integration behavior should be covered by change control and appropriate validation. The required rigor depends on how the shared data is used, the customer contract, and the supplier’s quality system.
Common failure modes
The main risk is not that visibility is impossible. The risk is publishing the wrong level of visibility and creating false confidence.
For example, an FAI traveler may show an operation as complete while inspection evidence is still under review. A portal may show the current traveler status but not the latest drawing revision from PLM. A QMS nonconformance may exist, but the FAI dashboard may not surface it because the integration only reads MES status. These gaps matter because OEM users may treat the shared view as authoritative.
Another failure mode is overexposure. If the supplier exposes raw MES screens, shared file folders, or broad database views, it may unintentionally disclose proprietary process data, other customer information, export-controlled data, or internal quality discussions that were never intended for customer access.
Brownfield reality
Most suppliers are not operating from a clean, single-system architecture. FAI travelers may depend on a mix of MES, ERP, PLM, QMS, inspection equipment, document control, and manual records. In that environment, full replacement is usually unrealistic because of qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, change control, and long equipment lifecycles.
A safer approach is usually a governed visibility layer over existing systems. That layer should expose the minimum necessary FAI data, preserve source-system traceability, and make synchronization limits clear. If the source systems are inconsistent, incomplete, or poorly governed, the OEM-facing view will inherit those weaknesses.
Practical answer
Suppliers can provide live FAI traveler visibility to OEMs, but it should be scoped, permissioned, audited, and aligned to the actual FAI workflow. The goal is not total transparency into the supplier’s factory. The goal is controlled transparency into the evidence, status, exceptions, and approvals the OEM legitimately needs to manage FAI risk.