spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

March 13, 2010

 

12 Reasons Why Supplier Scorecards Fail

Scorecards have become the Holy Grail of supplier performance management. Most companies either already use them or want to use them. Expectations for results are high. However, few firms are satisfied with their scorecards and even fewer are pleased with the results that they are getting from the scorecards. While it is true that suppliers can sometimes improve just by being measured because of the Hawthorn Effect, that is, because they know that the customer is watching, the improvements may be temporary. Part of the reason for the lack of supplier scorecard success is that firms often focus on the mechanics of getting scorecards implemented and neglect to focus on effectiveness. Supplier scorecards are most successful when deployed as part of an overall supplier evaluation business process.

When asked if the scorecards are providing results and whether supplier performance has improved, few respond "yes". The challenges of developing and deploying supplier scorecards are fairly common, but not insurmountable.

Why is developing an effective supplier scorecard such a challenge? Here are 12 reasons why supplier scorecards fail:



1. Firms measure what is easily measured rather than what is important to the business. Too often people come up with a wish list of metrics and KPIs that they would like to use, but end up actually deploying different and less meaningful metrics and KPIs because the data for the desired metrics are not readily available. This can lead to #2.

2. Metrics are borrowed from other companies and are not sufficiently relevant or meaningful to the borrowing firm. While it is helpful to learn what other firms, even in the same industry, are measuring on their scorecards, other firms' metrics may not fit your business or you may not be able to gather the same data as other firms. Poor fit means poor results.

3. Some firms try to track too many KPIs or measure too many suppliers to be effective. Quality of metrics always trumps quantity.

4. Metrics do not support or are not aligned with a firm's business goals. Supplier scorecards developed in a vacuum without regard to senior management's goals and objectives will have a lower chance of success and of senior management support in the form of resources.

5. Scorecards may lack credibility and transparency and thus can be subject to doubt and dispute, both within a company and with suppliers. Who wants to waste time arguing about whether the numbers are right?

6. Scorecards that require too much data cleansing and manipulation to produce have a lower probability of success. The more tweaking required, the greater the amount of additional (scarce) resources that may be needed and the potentially lower the credibility of the metrics with suppliers.

7. Internal stakeholders don't provide input on a timely basis or not at all. If internal support and discipline is lacking, the best laid plans for measuring internal stakeholder satisfaction can disappear, derailing your supplier evaluation process.

8. Scorecard results are not regularly shared with suppliers. If scorecards are kept a secret from suppliers, performance improvement will not result. And, yes, I have seen organizations that don't get around to sharing supplier scorecard results with their suppliers.

9. Suppliers are unclear about their customer's performance expectations. When suppliers are not sure what performance the customer expects, how can they meet customer performance expectations? Result of scorecards: nothing happens.

10. Metrics are confusing or have no meaning to suppliers. Suppliers: Did you ever see mysterious metrics on your scorecard and wonder -- where did they come from, what do they mean, and even sometimes, is the customer making them up?

11. There is little or no action or follow through that results from the scorecards. (i.e., suppliers do not see recognition, rewards, corrective actions, or disengagement as a result of their performance). If there are no consequences or rewards, a supplier will soon realize that scorecards are just customer window dressing. Yep, we've got supplier scorecards, check.

12. Scorecard metrics are simply not actionable. Or, scorecard metrics do not help expose the root causes of problems, making it difficult for the supplier to undertake corrective actions. Without action and results, scorecards can be a waste of resources.

Readers of this post may also be interested in the February 1, 2009 IndustryWeek article by Nick Zubko called, "Who's Keeping Score”.

- Sherry Gordon

Comments
Excellent list Sherry, especially the "too many" and the "not meaningful." I have also found that metrics or KPIs that measure activity, rather than outcome are also common because of the nature of the data available.

One interesting anecdote came from my consulting to the US Coast Guard. They used to measure the effectiveness of their search and rescue operations by "the number of hours of search time flown" because they had detailed logs of flight hours. An enlightened admiral suggested they measure the number of people they pull from the water.
# Posted By eggbert | 5/22/09 4:13 AM
I should also add that sometimes customers should also consider developing a scorecard that their suppliers complete anonymously that reflect how they are doing as a "Customer of Choice". We recently presented results of a study we did at ISM, and the fact is that many times customers do things that significantly increase their "cost to serve". Sometimes one needs to take a look in the mirror before telling others how badly they are performing. In such cases, there are often issues related to poor communication, delays in payments, insufficient detail on quality and delivery requirements, frequency and depth of communication, and a host of other issues that can not only make you a customer of choice, but also dramatically improve the supplier's performance relative to your requirements.
# Posted By Rob Handfield | 5/22/09 8:57 AM
Rob, thanks for pointing that out. I totally agree with you. This is an area that needs more attention. When I was running the New England Suppliers Institute in the 90s, we developed a measurement tool that was called the Supply Chain Management Improvement Process. It was used to measure the customer's capabilities for managing its suppliers. It was administered to multiple functions in a customer firm to assess the deployment of supply management best practices. This tool evolved because the board members of our organization (made up of both customer and supplier firms) felt that the customer firm causes more than half of its suppliers' problems and that customers needed to understand how to improve their own supply management competencies. The assessments were designed to prioritize specific customer opportunities for improvement. We found that improved supplier performance depended in part on customer business practices and capabilities.

-Sherry Gordon
# Posted By Sherry Gordon | 5/22/09 10:39 AM
This reminds me of the Golden Rule and its two most important corollaries:

Golden Rule: If you do not measure it, you do not control it

1st Corollary: If you measure the wrong thing you are wasting your time

2nd Corollary: If the decision makers do not have continual and regular access to the updated measurement before the decision is made then who really cares.
# Posted By Jim Kelly | 5/25/09 8:10 PM
The commentary here is great. The one thing I would add to it is the importance in this environment of measuring both the quantitative and the qualitative. The quantitative (e.g., PPM, escapes, SLA adherence, etc.) can be such a critical leading indicator when it come to potential generally business problems vs. simply operational ones. And one of the benefits of supplier performance management systems that are implemented properly is that they can roll-up this information in a way that allows managers to focus on what the data means -- vs. wasting countless cycles gathering it from multiple systems/reports and then trying to piece it all together.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 5/26/09 2:59 PM
Sherry's reason #3 reminds me of Ackoff's rule about systems:

“The likelihood of a system’s being used decreases exponentially with its complexity.”

I like the simplicity of eBay's evaluation system-- which I think is a key to its success. And, to Rob's point about the need for customers to be better customers, eBay essentially has both supplier and buyer scorecards!
# Posted By Jason Magidson | 5/27/09 7:25 PM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved