You are on page 1of 8

METALCRAFT SUPPLIER

SCORECARD CASE STUDY
STRATEGIC SOURCING
NAVEEN VENKATESH
GJAN14GLM23
AKHIL GUPTA

GJAN14GLM21

RONAK LAKHANI

GJAN14GLM25

low price and good technical capability to find the best fit supplier  Investigate process improvement in supplier selections by means of scorecard up gradation . accuracy and reliability  Trade off least defect PPM.PROBLEM STATEMENT & OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT “Zero Defects sub-assemblies required from chosen supplier” Key Objectives:  Evaluate scorecard metrics and check if they are exhaustive  Evaluate the scorecard for fairness.

the purpose is being met Aggregate supplier performance and centralize Consolidated and plant level data available Selection of supplier for any requirement It ignores some key attributes in the process Improve performance of suppliers 44% improvement in quality Improve responsiveness Suppliers take more time to react than before To identify problems in advance Yes this is being used by SD Extensive usage as a tool Many are not aware .ARE THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLIER SCORECARD MEETING ITS OBJECTIVES Purpose of the scorecard Remarks Information sharing across multiple activities and with suppliers Yes.

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF SCORECARD Strengths Weaknesses Aggregation of data and monitoring at corporate level Awareness of scorecard was not wide spread Provided feedback to suppliers on their performance Pricing continued to play a major role in the supplier selection process Provided a log of historical performances for each supplier Classification of data on the basis of product lines etc. not possible Improve awareness about performance Suppliers became less responsive Input automated from CMMS Manual intervention is possible Provides a rationale for supplier selection Some participants have more command Supplier selection based on No assessment for Source: Case .

EXPLOITATION OF THE SCORECARD Incentive Final decision lies with Initiate QR in CMMS Process ownership Source: Case Participa nt Buyer Quality Buyer Influence They could ignore other aspects in favour of price reduction They alter the PPM goals with personal bias With higher level approvals under performing suppliers can be chosen .

SCORECARD IMPROVEMENT Area of Concern  Ignores pricing & Technological Recommendations  capability  Count of defects over a period forecast  doesn’t give information on repeat offenders    Payment terms on Purchase orders should be considered as an input  Feedback of SD engineer should also be incorporated in the process  Weights for calculating the process performance figure to be varied as Standardized weight allocation for per product category any kind of product or project   Supplier development are most frequent users. but have no say in MTBF could be incorporated in the evaluation process Suppliers are held responsible for activities that they aren’t liable for Include ranks through judgmental Suppliers became less responsive  Provide progressive feedback and estimated performance figure to .

but have no say in decision the process   Promise incentives to suppliers who Suppliers became less responsive improved and moved from Red to as once disregarded orders hardly Green .MANAGERIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENT Area of Concern  Warranty cost are more than profit Recommendations  Vendor place inspection or third party inspection to be carried out  The selection process doesn’t encompass end user/customer (QR process)  requirement   Finished goods quality rating and customer feedback should be used After sales service is not  Evaluate Total cost of ownership considered  Multi-functional program Supplier development are most management team should finalize frequent users.

ANY QUESTIONS? .