This morning's urgent task: The supplier scoring standard stuck between "fairness" and "reality"
This morning, I had just picked up my ceramic cup and was about to go to the tea room to get some warm water - this is my daily routine after arriving at work, used to ease the fatigue from commuting - when a red unread message popped up on the enterprise WeChat on my desk: "Come to the small meeting room on the third floor right away. There's an urgent task." By the time I rushed there clutching my cup, the leader was already waiting there, flipping through a folder: "The current supplier evaluation criteria need to be improved. Come up with an adjustment plan before work ends this afternoon. The core is to maintain fairness, but we have to address the current 'awkward results'."
The so - called "awkward result" refers to the trial - run data just compiled last week. Among the top 20 core suppliers of the company (accounting for 85% of the total procurement amount and covering key materials such as chips and structural parts), after being scored according to the current standards, 12 suppliers fell into Grade C (60 - 70 points), and 5 were stuck in Grade D (below 60 points). According to the rules, suppliers in Grade D will be "put on the elimination list, and if there is no improvement within 3 months, the cooperation will be terminated". However, the leader said bluntly that "this is impossible". These suppliers are either the sole suppliers of certain types of materials or stable partners with a cooperation history of more than 5 years. If they are really eliminated, it will lead to a direct supply disruption, and the production line will have to shut down next week. The standards are rigid, while the business is flexible, so the standards must be changed.
But I've only been in the supplier management position for 3 months, and I haven't fully grasped the logic of the scoring rules. In the current standard, the quality indicator accounts for 50%. Among them, the deduction item for the "incoming material batch defect rate" is particularly strict: if the single - time defect rate exceeds 1%, 10 points will be deducted (the industry average is 5 points). Three of the core suppliers dropped directly from grade B to grade D last month due to a single incoming material defect. I stared at the "2024 Q2 Supplier Scoring Form" on the computer. The red grade D markings stabbed my eyes painfully. To protect these suppliers, I have to adjust the threshold of the quality deduction items. But to be fair, I can't relax the rules just for them. If other small suppliers see the double - standard, they will definitely file a complaint.
In the morning, I held a meeting with Sister Wang from IQC (Incoming Quality Control) and Brother Li from the supply chain. The differences were immediately put on the table. Sister Wang slapped the table and said, "Quality is the bottom line, and its proportion cannot be lower than 50%." She thought that the quality deduction items in the current standard were too "severe". For example, a small - batch defect would result in a 10 - point deduction, which was equivalent to directly breaking through the score. Brother Li shook his head and said, "If we lower the weight of quality, and the incoming material defect rate rises in the future, the supply chain will have to take the blame." After two hours, only one consensus was reached - "The threshold of the quality deduction items in the current standard needs to be adjusted." However, there was absolutely no conclusion on how much to adjust it to and whether the weights of other dimensions (such as on - time delivery rate and after - sales response time) should be increased synchronously.
Now the hour hand points to half past eleven. I've written and crossed out on the scratch paper in front of me: Should the mass proportion be changed from 50% to 45%? Should the deduction for poor incoming materials be changed from 10 points to 5 points? Should the bonus item for on-time delivery rate be increased from 2 points to 3 points? Every time I change a number, I have to consider the chain reaction: If the mass proportion is reduced by 5%, will it make suppliers relax their quality control? If the deduction is reduced by 5 points, can the five Class D suppliers be promoted to above Class C? More importantly, how can I explain the rationality of the adjustment to the leader - neither being seen as "deliberately lenient to protect suppliers" nor being able to solve the practical problem of "not being able to afford to eliminate"?
Staring at the blank project template on the computer screen, I suddenly recalled the procurement docking meeting with a certain supplier last week. The other side complained, "Your standards are 30% stricter than the industry average, but the payment cycle is 20 days slower than the industry." Perhaps the problem has never been "the standards are too strict", but rather that the standards do not match the company's own supply chain capabilities. When we require suppliers to achieve "zero defects", can we ourselves make "timely payments"? When we set the quality weight to 50%, can we give suppliers enough time for improvement?
But these thoughts are too "abstract," and I have to submit the plan this afternoon. I rubbed my temples and opened the "2024 Supplier Management White Paper" of the industry association, trying to find reference data from it. For example, the industry average quality accounts for 40%, delivery 30%, cost 20%, and service 10%. Maybe I can adjust the current "quality 50%, delivery 30%, cost 20%" to "quality 45%, delivery 30%, cost 15%, service 10%." At the same time, reduce the deduction for incoming material defects from 10 points to 5 points, and add a bonus item (5 points) for "no defects for 3 consecutive months." In this way, the scores of major suppliers can be improved, and they can be encouraged to improve quality through the bonus item. This also balances "fairness" and "reality."
But just as I wrote this idea in the draft, I hesitated again: Will the IQC object to the decrease in the quality proportion? Will the leader think the adjustment range is too small? Will other suppliers think that "a 10% service proportion" is giving the green light to some suppliers with good relationships?
The sunlight outside the window filtered through the clouds and shone on the three characters "fairness" on the draft paper. I suddenly realized that the so - called "improving the standards" has never been as simple as just changing a few numbers. It requires balancing business needs and rule baselines, taking into account short - term supply guarantee and long - term control, and ensuring that every adjustment is supported by data and every supplier finds it "convincing". What I need to do now is to turn these balances into specific terms and hand in a plan that "can solve the problem and hold water" to my leader before getting off work this afternoon.
Just at this moment, the hand holding the pen is a bit tense. There are still six hours until the deadline, and I've just sorted out the first adjustment item.