codexkit-supplier-evaluation

# Supplier Evaluation Scorecard ## When to Use - During quarterly or annual supplier performance reviews - When selecting vendors for new sourcing decisions - When consolidating or rationalizing the supplier base - When a supplier's performance triggers a review ## Procedure ### Step 1 — Define Evaluation Criteria | Criterion | Weight | Measurement | |-----------|--------|-------------| | Quality | 30% | Defect rate, inspection pass rate, returns | | Delivery | 25% | On-time delivery %, lead time variance | | Cost | 20% | Price competitiveness, total cost of ownership | | Responsiveness | 15% | Communication speed, issue resolution time | | Sustainability | 10% | ESG compliance, certifications, carbon footprint | Adjust weights based on industry and strategic priorities. ### Step 2 — Score Each Criterion | Score | Level | Description | |-------|-------|-------------| | 5 | Excellent | Exceeds expectations consistently | | 4 | Good | Meets expectations with occasional excellence | | 3 | Acceptable | Meets minimum standards | | 2 | Below Average | Frequent issues, requires monitoring | | 1 | Unacceptable | Consistent failures, action required | ### Step 3 — Calculate Weighted Total `Weighted Score = Σ (Score × Weight)` ### Step 4 — Tier Classification | Weighted Score | Tier | Relationship Strategy | |---------------|------|----------------------| | 4.5–5.0 | Strategic | Long-term partnership, innovation collaboration | | 3.5–4.4 | Preferred | Stable relationship, volume commitment | | 2.5–3.4 | Approved | Transactional, competitive bidding | | < 2.5 | Conditional | Improvement plan required, phase-out risk | ### Step 5 — Action Plan For Conditional and low-Approved suppliers: 1. Issue corrective action request (CAR) 2. Define improvement targets with timeline 3. Schedule re-evaluation in 90 days 4. Identify backup supplier if no improvement ## Inputs | Input | Required | Format | |-------|----------|--------| | Supplier name and category | Yes | Text | | Performance data | Yes | Metrics per criterion | | Contract/spend data | Recommended | Annual spend, contract terms | | Previous evaluation | Recommended | Prior scorecard if available | ## Output ```markdown ## Supplier Evaluation — [Supplier Name] — [Period] ### Scorecard | Criterion | Weight | Score | Weighted | |-----------|--------|-------|----------| | Quality | 30% | 4 | 1.20 | | Delivery | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | | Cost | 20% | 4 | 0.80 | | Responsiveness | 15% | 5 | 0.75 | | Sustainability | 10% | 3 | 0.30 | | **Total** | **100%** | | **3.80** | ### Tier: PREFERRED (3.80 / 5.0) ### Improvement Areas 1. Delivery: OTD dropped to 88% (target: 95%) — root cause: warehouse capacity 2. Sustainability: No ISO 14001 certification yet — expected Q3 ### Action Plan | Action | Owner | Deadline | |--------|-------|----------| | Improve OTD to 95% | Supplier ops team | 90 days | | Submit ISO 14001 timeline | Supplier quality | 60 days | | Re-evaluate | Procurement | Q3 | ``` ## Definition of Done - [ ] All criteria scored with evidence - [ ] Weighted total calculated - [ ] Tier classification assigned - [ ] Improvement areas identified for scores ≤ 3 - [ ] Action plan with owners and deadlines for Conditional/low-Approved ## Examples ### Prompt ```text Evaluate our packaging supplier FastPack Ltd for Q1. Quality: 96% pass rate (4/5), Delivery: 88% OTD (3/5), Cost: competitive (4/5), Responsiveness: excellent (5/5), Sustainability: no ISO 14001 (3/5). Generate the scorecard and improvement plan. ``` ## Quality Criteria - [ ] Data sources and assumptions are explicitly stated - [ ] Calculations are reproducible from provided inputs - [ ] Visualizations or tables have clear labels, units, and time ranges - [ ] Caveats and confidence levels are documented for estimates ## Verification (4C) | Check | Question | |-------|----------| | **Correctness** | Are formulas, aggregations, and statistical methods applied correctly? | | **Completeness** | Does the analysis cover all requested metrics and time ranges? | | **Context-fit** | Are the chosen metrics relevant to the business question being answered? | | **Consequence** | If this data were used for a decision today, what blind spots remain? | ## Edge Cases - **Missing or incomplete data** — Document gaps and their potential impact on conclusions. Provide ranges instead of point estimates. - **Outliers skewing results** — Report with and without outliers. Document the decision to include or exclude. - **Changing data definitions mid-period** — Split analysis at the change boundary and note the schema difference. ## Changelog - v1.0.0 — Initial release