PD1/November 2016

Professional diploma in procurement and supply

Leadership in procurement and supply

Date Friday 18 November 2016

Time Start 09:30 End 12:30 Duration 3 hours

QUESTION PAPER
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES
This examination has FOUR compulsory questions worth 25 marks each.
1. Do not open this question paper until instructed by the invigilator.
2. All answers must be written in the answer booklet provided.
3. All rough work and notes should be written in the answer booklet.

QP04
You are advised to allow 20 minutes to read carefully and analyse the information in the case study
before attempting to answer the questions.

CASE STUDY: SPARKATRON DOMESTIC APPLIANCES LTD (SDA)

Leigh Jones has been in post as the supply chain manager for the Northern Division of Sparkatron Domestic
Appliances Ltd for six months. She was now taking time to prepare for her twice yearly performance review
with the group’s supply chain director. This review would consider her personal performance and the
performance of the team she leads against objectives previously agreed. She took time to reflect upon her
time in her new position.

When she first undertook the role, she was required to undertake a brief review of the current position
against objectives and to develop an action plan. This would be discussed and agreed with her team of
eight procurement officers.

She organised a presentation to the team which summarised performance against key performance
indicators over the previous four quarters. She then discussed with the team the reasons behind various
areas of underperformance and what should be done to address them.

She found that some members of the team disagreed strongly with each other about the reasons for
underperformance. One team member said that the objectives were unrealistic in the current market;
another believed that the resources had not been available to implement the projects; and another
suggested that the cost reduction strategy underpinning this was undermining quality and damaging
reputation. After extended discussions, she decided to call a halt to the meeting and reconvene the
following week, as progress on the action plan was limited.

The second meeting went better, but she found that she had to take a more authoritative approach with
the team. Some of the team members continued to resist and did not wish to engage with the company
agenda.

The company had previously identified a need to reduce product material costs by 12%, to contribute
to enhanced margins and competitiveness. Leigh had been requested to lead a cross-functional team –
including the research and development, production, marketing and quality functions – to work on the
company’s range of washing machines and dishwashers.

Representatives within this group were at seniority levels which were equivalent to Leigh’s. In addition, four
key suppliers were invited to join the group. For two of the suppliers, TimCom and WirCom, Sparkatron
was a relatively minor customer, and Leigh was concerned that they had nominated relatively junior sales
representatives to join the group. After three meetings, materials savings of 10% had been identified.
However, the TimCom and WirCom representatives had not moved their position on any of the items that
they supplied to Sparkatron, nor had they contributed to any value-analysis suggestions. Leigh knew that
these companies were key stakeholders for Sparkatron and that she would need to influence their position
to reach the 12% target. She was also concerned that the production manager for Sparkatron, who had a
good relationship with the TimCom and WirCom representatives, appeared to be supporting their position.

Leigh had identified that the supplier base of Sparkatron was relatively geographically limited, which
appeared to increase risk for the company. She had decided to visit potential new suppliers in industrially
developing countries, and for the four weeks while she would be away, her role would need to be covered.
At her weekly team meeting she asked if anyone would like to step forward and take the opportunity to
cover for her and gain some experience. There were no volunteers. When she explored why with two team
members privately after the meeting, they explained that they were concerned about the responsibility.
Leigh found this worrying.

Page 4 of 8 PD1 Exam Questions November 2016

QUESTIONS

These questions relate to the case study and should be answered in the context of the information
provided. You are advised to spend 40 minutes on each question.

Q1 (a) At the second meeting with her team, Leigh found that she had to take a more authoritative
leadership approach.

Discuss, using appropriate theory, the main factors or forces that may influence Leigh’s
approach to effective leadership. (13 marks)

(b) Evaluate other approaches to leadership, apart from authoritative, that Leigh might have
adopted. (12 marks)

Q2 Leigh will need to communicate with and influence a range of stakeholders in order to achieve buy-in
to the cost reduction project.

Suggest FIVE influencing tactics that Leigh might use to achieve this objective. (25 marks)

Q3 Assess the sources of power that Leigh may use with the cross-functional team, including the
suppliers, to achieve a positive outcome for the cost reduction project. (25 marks)

Q4 (a) The case study suggests that there is resistance to change in Leigh’s team, for example that
none of the staff members were prepared to cover for her while she was away.

Assess THREE approaches which Leigh could adopt to overcome resistance to change.
(15 marks)

(b) Outline TWO benefits for Leigh of encouraging staff in the procurement team to accept a
greater degree of delegation. (10 marks)

END OF QUESTION PAPER

Page 5 of 8 PD1 Exam Questions November 2016

 PLEASE RETURN TO:
CIPS ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT CENTRE
c/o LINNEY DIRECT, A2 GOODS IN
BELLAMY ROAD, MANSFIELD
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG18 4LN
UNITED KINGDOM
TEL: +44(0) 845 880 1188
FAX: +44(0) 845 880 1187
www.cips.org

Page 8 of 8 PD1 Exam Questions November 2016