by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 12, 2014 | Blog, Data/Analytics, Strategy, Supply Chain
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
Regularly tracking your relationship with your suppliers and their performance toward your expectations is critical to ensure the success of your business. One mechanism for tracking this is the supplier scorecard. A scorecard is in essence a report card for your supplier. Supplier scorecards when used effectively can help maintain a healthy supply chain and will benefit both parties. If not used effectively supplier scorecards can damage the supplier relationship and hurt both businesses.
Effective scorecards should use meaningful metrics. If it doesn’t align with business goals then it shouldn’t be measured. Easily measured variables of no importance will just cause clutter; they could also cause a supplier to focus their performance in areas that do not matter. If the metrics are not clearly defined and understood by the suppliers then it will be hard for them to adjust their performance in these areas. Another consideration is there may be things that are important to you which your suppliers have no way of measuring or attaining the performance you are asking for.
As with all business to business relationships communication is critical for maintaining and improving supplier performance. To ensure suppliers meet your needs you should communicate to them from the offset how their performance will be measured. You can even tie bonuses and penalties into their performance scores. You should be mindful that your relationship with your supplier should be collaborative; as you grow so should they. You should share the results of your scorecards with your suppliers on a regular basis and shouldn’t wait until a review to raise a concern. Another important aspect of communication is sharing your business objectives and performance data with your suppliers. This can help them to better shape their business to meet your needs as your business fluctuates.
It is important when evaluating suppliers to have a good process in place for tracking important metrics. When possible it is best to use accurate data that is understood by both you and your supplier. If you use fuzzy metrics which are subjective then improvements become difficult to measure and target. Also, tracking metrics throughout the scoring period will help to ensure the data is accurate and your scorecard reflects actual performance.
When dealing with different suppliers it is important to make sure the metrics you are evaluating are relevant to each supplier. As a result it is not recommended to use a one size fits all approach to supplier scorecards. Another thing to keep in mind is that you may be sourcing from the same supplier through multiple locations. It is important to track each of these on its own scorecard to help your supplier learn where they are doing things right and where they are falling short of your expectations.
Where I work we have several strategic supplier partnerships. The way we manage supplier relationships is through quarterly business reviews with each of our partners. In these meetings high level representation from both companies is present. We share with our partners our business results and forecasts in addition to any major company news. After sharing this information we review our scorecard process with the suppliers, show a score card comparison, take a detailed look at each rating, and then provide an overall summary.
Our scoring system looks at aspects of quality, delivery, cost, support, and inventory management. With respect to quality we look at hard numbers like failures out of the box and returns from our customers. We take into account both product quality and process quality. When it comes to delivery we measure on-time delivery, missed shipments, and lead times. Some of our customers have long term fixed cost agreements so this metric isn’t required, for others the cost fluctuates; we measure whether or not their costs are in line with our expectations. Support has several levels including technical support, order support, and special cases. Inventory management tracks how well they are able to maintain some inventory on hand for us.
Our scorecard metrics used to be scored on the basis of a five point scale from far below expectations to far above expectations. After running through several of these scorecards we determine that it was not likely to get exceeds expectations because the only time expectations could be exceeded is if our demand was well above our forecasts. Since this goal wasn’t something attainable by a supplier of their own action we adjusted our scorecard to have only three levels, from below expectations to meets expectations.
The scorecard comparison is unique to the supplier and it shows the ratings for each of the metrics for the current review period as well as four prior quarters. We display this in a color coded matrix so that it is easy to see where each metric is improving, staying the same, or regressing from period to period. For my employer these quarterly business reviews give us frequent touch points with our suppliers. This helps us to identify issues and areas for improvement to strengthen our supplier relationships and our business.
Throughout this article I have hit on several best practices with respect to supplier scorecards. I want to stress that this is just a tool. The fact that you have a scorecard system in place should not prevent you from acting immediately if issues present themselves. After all, this should be a collaborative exercise which will benefit both your company as well as your suppliers. In addition it is important to solicit internal feedback from interested parties. Supplier scorecards should be used to make decisions about whether or not to continue supplier relations or to pursue alternative suppliers.
Mike Cleary is a Software Quality Assurance Engineer at Empirix pursuing his Masters of Science in Management of Technology from the University of New Hampshire. He has over ten years of experience in testing IP and telephony solutions across a variety of platforms. In his current role he is responsible for not only ensuring Quality in the E-XMS solution but other administrative tasks such as lab configuration, VM server, and perforce administration.
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 5, 2014 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
By now we have all heard the story of GM’s faulty ignition switches that are being linked to thirteen deaths and thirty one front-end collisions. The ignition switches in car models: Chevy Cobalt; Chevy HHR; Pontiac G5; Pontiac Solstice; Saturn Ion; and Saturn Sky, lacked the torque specs required by GM engineers. Heavy key chains, bumpy roads, or an accidental knee hit were all reasons reported that could cause the ignition switch to rotate to the off or idle position. Once this happened, the driver would lose control and the air bags would fail to deploy if a front end collision occurred. A total of 2.6 million vehicles were recalled, of that 2.2 million were in the United States. For this type of recall, GM was not requiring vehicles to go back to the manufacturer or be disposed. Rather, a more robust key ignition was distributed to all authorized GM dealerships and customers were told to bring their cars to the local dealership and a new ignition switch would be put in for them.
Despite the massive recall and all the negative publicity that goes along with such an event, GM still posted positive numbers in their quarterly earnings. GM posted an operating income of $0.5 billion for 1Q14, which is included the $1.3 billion recall-related charge. Furthermore, GM controlled approximately 17% of the U.S. market share. After the ignition switch incidents started to gain traction, GM swore to reorganize their global engineering department, and they did. So, if GM’s sales profitability is surviving, their negative press contained, and their market share intact, what exactly went wrong?
Two-thirds of General Motors automotive costs in 2014 are from supplier sourced parts. However, this was not always the situation. Back in 1999, GM underwent an extensive effort to disassemble their vertical integration in hopes of reducing overall costs. At this time, Delphi Automotive was owned by GM, but separated during the same year. For decades, GM was Delphi’s only customer, and even when Delphi executives knew GM was going to make them a public company, they were only able to move 22% of their business to other customers. When GM officially made Delphi a public company, 82.3% of their shares went to GM shareholders. That means that only 17.7% of Delphi was sold to public investors. In order to survive as a company, Delphi had to start making cost reduction decisions. To do this, companies often lay off employees and make cheaper parts, Delphi was no different. Now during this same time period, GM executives were focused on focused on costs reductions and were driven by numbers, hence the selling off of Delphi. It should be noted that if a company sells off their single largest parts supplier, fully aware that the move may cause the supplier to go belly up, there will be some strained relationships. Delphi was now thrown into a position where they must compete with other parts suppliers for GM’s business. An important part of the deal GM made when selling off Delphi was to keep all current supplier contracts. In addition, GM gave Delphi the opportunity to match any competitor’s bid until 2002. The earliest model of a recalled GM car was 2003.
Strained supplier relationships are not ideal for business, but should not affect the quality of a product, such as an ignition switch. Let’s fast forward to 2008. Delphi had declared bankruptcy three years prior and GM was beginning to pull them out of their financial burden. A contract was found between GM and Delphi that was drafted in 2008. The document is a little difficult to follow, but there are a few interesting lines in Section 5.09 Product Liability Claims. It appears that, GM said they would share the blame with Delphi for any claims against them. However, GM would not be held responsible if one of Delphi’s parts, or a part made for Delphi by a third party, fails. The contract continues on to say that GM would pay any legal fees if a claim was made against Delphi, but Delphi must defend GM through a potential lawsuit. This contract was drafted and signed in 2008, during which Delphi was bankrupt, so it appears they had little negotiating power.
This raises concerns specifically about the ignition switch specs. It came out that GM officials knew the ignition switch they purchased from Delphi was not up to their standards. After some more research, an email transaction between Delphi officials in regards to the plunger, the vital part that holds the key slot in place with a spring, and the ignition switch. At the end of the document, the original engineer drawings are attached. From the technical drawings it can be seen that Delphi did in fact outsource the design specs, and possibly the manufacturing, for the plunger design. Another document, that was preceding the email transaction, appears to inform GM that the plunger part was changed and the responsibility of the supplier is “closed”. This could have been a legal move meant to save Delphi if any claims were made related to these parts.
After all of this evidence, where does the blame lie? It would appear that GM used their powers to force Delphi into a contract that held them responsible for any claims against their products. While Delphi did warn GM that the torque requirement for their ignition switch did not meet GM’s requirement, it is unclear whether or not a verbal warning will play into the legal battle. This case is currently ongoing, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Connor Harrison holds a B.S.M.E and MBA from the University of New Hampshire.
by Elizabeth Hines | Oct 22, 2013 | Blog, Leadership, Strategy, Supply Chain
Source: Simply Silhouettes
Within the logistics and supply chain industries, the key to providing your client with an end to end valuable offering is providing the core value yourself and outsourcing the rest. Finding the right outsource partner is critical to success. Here are seven things you need to consider when choosing a new outsource partner.
1. Culture and values
Choosing the right partner goes beyond capabilities. You have to consider the corporate culture as well. In addition to being able to do the work, the ideal partner should be able do it seamlessly by fitting with your team and with your client’s needs.
When evaluating a new outsourcing partner, it is important to look at their mission or value statements. How do these hold up to your own company’s mission and value statements? Are they well aligned? If they are, move on and explore the company further. If not, walk away. Mission and value statements speak to the core culture of the company, so if you can’t find common ground here, it is unlikely you will be able to build a positive working relationship.
2. Standards and metrics
What standards of quality and delivery does the potential partner employ? Here it is important to look at their metrics and processes. How do these compare with the ones within your company? If they are similar, it is not only likely your systems will be able to work well together, but also likely that the two companies have a similar approach to standards of quality and delivery.
3. Investments
Next, take a look at where the potential partner has made investments. Has the company spent in similar areas to your company? Similar investments show business culture or strategy alignment. If the investments are different, find out why.
4. Financial stability
What is the financial health of the potential partner? You don’t want to enter into a partnership only to find out in a few months that the company is not financial stable. Entering into a partnership with a company that does not have its financial house in order is a costly mistake. Take the time to do your due diligence.
5. Where will you stand?
What will your relationship be? That is, will you be a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond? When times are good this doesn’t matter, but when there is a customer satisfaction issue, it can mean the difference between client retention or client attrition. It is essential to know where you stand inside your partner’s organizational priorities. If you are comfortable with where you will stand, that’s great. If not, find another partner.
6. Long-term strategy
It is also important to look at the long-term strategy of your company and your potential partner’s company. Does the service they will be providing on your behalf align with their continuing plans? And with your ongoing plans? Continuity and service development is important to your company and to your customers. The potential partner needs to be able to provide the specified service for the foreseeable future and also needs to be able to grow with your company’s strategic needs.
7. Credibility
Finally, look to social media. What are others saying about your potential partner in an unfiltered environment? Are people pleased with the service the company provides? Are there any red flags with respect to the company or the service they provide? Social media can help call attention to potential issues.
Also talk with others within the industry – especially people who have worked with the potential partner before. What was their experience? Again, look for red flags.
By following these steps, you’ll be able to better evaluate potential partners and identify partners that are a good fit from both a business and cultural perspective.
by Elizabeth Hines | Sep 17, 2013 | Blog, Leadership, Strategy, Talent
Last week Jason Seiken wrote a post for the HBR Blog Network on the necessity of failure for success. The post, How I Got My Team To Fail More, described his efforts at PBS to create an entrepreneurial culture by requiring members of the digital team to fail. Seiken wrote:
“Soon after arriving at PBS, I called the digital team into a conference room and announced we were ripping up everyone’s annual performance goals and adding a new metric.
Failure.
With a twist: ‘If you don’t fail enough times during the coming year,’ I told every staffer, ‘you’ll be downgraded.’
Because if you’re not failing enough, you’re playing it safe.
The idea was to deliver a clear message: Move fast. Iterate fast. Be entrepreneurial. Don’t be afraid that if you stretch and sprint you might break things. Executive leadership has your back.”
It has been five years since Seiken first introduced the failure metric to PBS. During that period unique visitors to PBS.org have doubled, and in each of the first seven months of 2013 PBS.org has been the most-visited network TV site (beating out ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox). Additionally, video views on PBS.org and PBS.org’s mobile platforms have risen 11,200 percent.
Was requiring failure the key to success? Not all those who read the post believed that requiring failure was the secret to success. Rather, many readers suggested that the creation of a culture of innovation, one supported by executive leadership, which was the inflection point for success.
The idea that innovation in business or an entrepreneurial culture is brought about by leadership is one put forth by many including Robert J. Herbold. In his book What’s Holding You Back: 10 Bold Steps that Define Gutsy Leaders, Herbold submits that it is the responsibility of a leader to establish a culture of innovation. That is, a leader must communicate a goal of innovation to his/her employees; encourage employees to aspire to innovation; reward innovation; and instill a sense of urgency.
I see innovation and entrepreneurism as the goal and not failure. For this reason I believe the focus should not be on failure, but instead should be establishing a culture which supports innovation. Yes risk-taking and failure are likely components of innovation, but they are just that – components. “Requiring failure” may be sexy, but I believe supporting innovation is more likely to be the game changer.
What do you think? Is failure a requirement for success? Should leadership focus on encouraging failure?
