Supplier development: An Assessment tool to identify supplier development potentials

(1)

-Master Thesis-

Supplier development: An Assessment tool to

identify supplier development potentials

Siebe Offringa S 2049821 University of Groningen Department of Operations Eindhoven, 13-07-2012 MSC Business Administration Operations & Supply Chains

(2)

Abstract

Today, companies are focusing more and more on their core competences and outsourcing a large part of the value to third parties. Consequently, the results of a company rely for a major part on the results of suppliers. Supplier development activities focus on improving the performances of suppliers in terms of quality, logistics, costs and so forth.

These activities however, are time consuming and costly. The dependency on that specific supplier increases the dependability, because of the time and cost efforts. Furthermore, suppliers are not always willing to participate in development project, since they are in a position to refuse the initiatives (from power perspective) or their performance is already at a high level (no need for development).

This paper describes the way of identifying supplier development prospect, based on an explorative study at multiple cases. The results show that the balance of power influences the relationship and consequently influences the choice of supplier development potentials.

Furthermore an assessment tool to identify supplier development potentials is proposed for a large truck manufacturer. The tool incorporates weighted criteria for assessing suppliers based on Analytic Hierarchy Process.

(3)

1. Introduction

Supply chain management is increasingly viewed as a competitive advantage because of the higher level of outsourcing (Krause 2002), and as firms concentrate on their core competences, they become more dependent on suppliers who possess technological competencies and manufacturing capacities that the firms themselves do not have. Firms might set up just-in-time exchange relationships with suppliers where frequent exchange of joint product-, production-, and logistic-related information allows for the flexible and reliable shipment of exact quantities and ensures that the buying firm’s production process run uninterrupted (Kaynak, 2002). According to Hahn (1990) a company must have a network of competent suppliers to compete effectively in the world market. Because of the focus on core competencies, supplier development becomes an important practice in supply chain management across industries.

A supplier development program is a systematic organizational effort to create and maintain a network of competent suppliers (Hahn, 1990). Krause (1997) rephrased it more specifically as: “any effort of a buying firm with its suppliers to increase the performance/or capabilities of the supplier and meet the buying firm’s supply need”.

Hahn (1990) created a conceptual model for supplier development where supplier selection (new suppliers) and supplier evaluation (existing suppliers) are rated to determine areas for

improvement. A ten-step process development model was developed by Krause et al. (1998) based on a survey. The process starts with (1) Identification of critical commodities for development and (2) Identification of critical suppliers of strategic commodities. A short description of how to identify and how to assess appropriate commodities and suppliers is added, nevertheless this is very limited and a comprehensive framework, incorporating assessment criteria, is lacking.

To sustain effective and reliable sources of supplies, buyers should select their suppliers carefully and evaluate them regularly. However, not all selected suppliers qualify for or need development assistance. A buying firm must carefully identify where to focus its supplier development efforts (Monszcka et al. 1993).

(6)

strategic approach (pro-active), for supplier development.

This research focuses on identifying which factors play an important role in identifying suppliers for a supplier development program, which is applicable for the truck manufacturer and also enriches theory on this topic.

The objective of this study is to present and test an approach to identify and map suppliers as a potential for a supplier development program. When a supply base of a firm consist out of hundreds or even thousands of suppliers, development activities cannot be applied to the total supply base.

Furthermore, supplier development is a costly activity in terms of time, effort and costs. Also, the dependency to that specific supplier will increase by applying development activities. Consequently, supplier development activities will be utilized by a small amount of suppliers who are often

operating in a product related (PR) environment.

The ten-step process development model from Krause (1998) will be the basis of the research and elaborated on that criteria will be added to indicate prospects for supplier development. Based on the theoretical background, the following research question is formulated:

“How can suppliers be assessed and ranked in order to identify potential suppliers for a development program?”

In the pursuit of answering this question, four sub-questions are formulated. Two questions are focusing on the positioning and/or balancing of power in regards to critical commodities and as a relation between buyer and supplier. The remaining two questions are concerned with assessment criteria and mapping suppliers for a development program.

(7)

2. Literature review

While business managers are reducing their supply base and thereby increasing the buying volume with the remaining suppliers (Prahinski and Benton, 2004), the importance of purchasing as a frontier source of supply chain improvement is growing (Sarkar and Mohapatra, 2006). Many companies are adopting a strategy of supply base reduction and long-term supplier relationship development. In literature there is a large variety of supplier development activities described.

2.1 Supplier development

Since the early 1980’s the interest surrounding effective supplier relationships has grown.

Literature on various JIT, total quality management, purchasing and other operations management fields have dwelled on supplier relationship topics like supplier certification programs, supplier partnerships and single sourcing (De Toni and Nassimbeni, 2000).

Another term which was introduced during those years concerns supplier development. Many researchers refer to Leenders (1966) as one of the first writers about supplier development. In the 1990’s Hahn et al. developed a conceptual model for supplier development. Many examples from in particular automobile producers are being described in literature. For example, Honda of America Manufacturing has a strong supplier development and certification process established with many of its suppliers (Nelson et al. 1998). Honda focuses on continuous process improvement of suppliers through evaluation in the areas of quality, cost, delivery, development speed, and management attitude.

Supplier development is defined as any organizational effort of a primary firm with regard to its supplier, to create and maintain a network of competent suppliers and to increase the performance and/or capabilities of the supplier to meet the organization’s short and long-term supply needs (Leenders, 1989). While Sánchez-Rodríguez et al. (2005) divide supplier development practices into basic, moderate and advanced stages, Krause (1997) developed a view about reactive and strategic approaches and groups them into direct involvement, incentives and enforced

competition. Reactive suggest more ad hoc efforts to cure specific problems, while strategic identifies key commodities and suppliers predict problem areas. Krause and Scannel (2002) expand their ideas about supplier development along 4 categories: (1) Competitive pressure, (2) supplier evaluation or assessment, (3) Supplier incentives, and (4) Direct involvement activities which represents a direct investment of the buying firm’s resources and may include activities such as training and education of a supplier’s personnel and deducting buying firm personnel to the supplier (Handfield et al, 2000). The aim is to improve the suppliers’ performance.

(8)

current quality and cost. They insisted that developing supplier capability and flexibility would be the key to the success of supplier development.

In general it is possible that suppliers underperform according to requirements. According to Wagner (2005) there are three solutions for dealing with these kind of suppliers:

1. Supplier Switching: Searching for alternative sources of supply and sourcing the product from a more capable supplier;

2. Vertical integration: Bringing the needed product in-house by acquiring the supplier or setting up manufacturing capacities internally, and;

3. Supplier development: Supporting the supplier in enhancing the performance of their products and services or improving the supplier’s capabilities.

The first option might not be feasible if alternative suppliers are not available or if switching costs are too expensive (Wagner, 2005), the second option is to acquiring the supplier or setting up capacities to turn out the product internally (Leiblein, 2002). Also this option Is in many cases too expensive and even more important, it is in contrary of companies’ strategy to focus on core competences.

The most popular programs within supplier development practices are quality management programs, supplier certification programs, supplier integration in target costing activities and early supplier involvement (ESI) (G. A. Zsidisin & Ellram, 2003). In terms of effectiveness of supplier development programs it was proposed that process-oriented rather than result-oriented supplier development may be more effective, because it increases the supplier’s ability to act on its own and improvement efforts will continue once the buying firm finishes its activity (Hartley and Jones, 1997)

Several authors accentuate the careful identification of selecting suppliers for such programs (Krause et al, 1999, Monszcka et al. 1993). On the one hand, not every supplier is willing to participate and commit to the program, while on the other hand, development programs are a major financial investment that increases a buying firm’s dependence on suppliers. Nevertheless, the authors are not clear about “What criteria should be used to identify suppliers that have a high probability of development success?”

This paper will explore the previous question by making use of multiple cases. By assessing suppliers as a potential for the supplier development program, several factors can play an important role in the contribution of a successful program, and therefore are discussed in more detail.

2.2 Identification of critical commodities

Glock (2012) argues that the learning effect in supplier selection plays an important role. For example a buyer orders exclusively at a single supplier, the supplier may be able to proceed quickly on the learning curve, leading to high efficiency gains and high reductions in unit

(9)

lean and efficient, but if they are unable to find alternatives quickly for unexpected disruptions, the chains will be susceptible to systems shocks and disruptions.

To avoid risks regarding disruptions and delays it is important to have the right strategy type according to purchasing products. Kraljic (1983) developed a portfolio approach to show how a company can guard itself against disastrous supply interruptions and cope with the changing economics. Kraljic’ purchasing portfolio model still is the dominant approach in the profession (Gelderman and Van Weele, 2003). According to Kraljic (1983): “A company’s need for a supply strategy depends on two factors:

The first factor concerns the strategic importance of the purchase in terms of the added value at the product line. Secondly, the percentage of raw materials in relation to total costs and the impact on profitability.

Figure 1: Kraljic Portfolio

Based on these two variables companies can assess their situation and the type of supply strategy needed to exploit its purchasing power with important suppliers and to reduce its risks to an

acceptable minimum. Kraljic’ portfolio model divides purchasing transactions into four groups based on these two dimensions; strategic (high profit impact, high supply risk), bottleneck (low profit impact, high supply risk), leverage (high profit impact, low supply risk), and noncritical (low profit impact, low supply risk). Commodities can be divided into one of the defined quadrants, indicating the relative value, compared to relative supply risk, to identify strategic commodities. Three general purchasing strategies are distinguished, depending on the balance of power in the buyer– supplier relationship: exploit, in case of buyer dominance, balance, in case of a balanced

relationship, and diversify, in case of supplier dominance (Caniels and Gelderman, 2005). Krause et al. (1998) state that companies should focus the development activities on those

suppliers who deliver high value-added, high volume and high risk strategic materials and services. Based on this, the following research question is defined:

“What is the impact of portfolio purchasing strategies in order to prioritize suppliers for supplier development?”

Leverage Strategic

Routine

(10)

2.3 Identification of critical suppliers

Other authors used the Kraljic portfolio as a foundation for other portfolio models regarding

supplier segmentation. Olsen and Ellram (1997) expanded on this model to propose an approach to analyze a firm’s portfolio of supplier relationships. They used classification criteria “importance of purchasing” versus “complexity of supply market” to identify suppliers. The competence

development model was created by Moller et al (2003), to identify supplier’s knowledge contribution compared to buyer’s knowledge contribution. Finally, a framework for managing a portfolio of relationships based on specific investments by both buyers and suppliers was proposed by Bensaou (1999).

The fundamental assumption of all portfolio models seems to be the occurrence of differences in power and dependence between buyers and suppliers (Dubois & Pedersen,2002). Buchanan (1992) conceptualized power-dependence imbalances in buyer–supplier relationships as the difference in value that buyers and sellers attach to the relationship. In asymmetric relationships, the most independent partner dominates the exchange. Balanced relationships refer to domination of neither party.

As described in paragraph 2.2 Krause et al. (1998) define that supplier development activities concentrate on strategic suppliers. However, research of Caniels and Gelderman (2005) declared a provocative result which influences the buyer’s view on issues of power and dependence. They observed supplier dominance in the strategic quadrant, where one would expect a balanced power situation based on literature. So should a company focus on a strategic suppliers where probably a asymmetric power situation occurs?

Portfolio thinking is supported by many authors, however purchasing portfolios are criticized too. Often doubts and questions arises according to measurement issues, where Kamann (2000) stated ‘‘Why is the supplier’s side disregarded in most portfolio models?’’ Dubois and Petersen (2002) add to that by asking ‘‘How could one deduce strategies from an analysis that is based on just two dimensions?’’ From a different perspective, Cox (1997) condemned the portfolio methodology, because it does not provide any proactive thinking about what can be done to change the existing reality of power in the various supply chains in which companies are involved. Power has to influence on the type of relationship (asymmetric vs. balanced) and based on aforementioned theory, the following research question is formulated:

“How does the relation of power between buyer and supplier influence the priority for supplier development?”

(11)

2.4 Supplier assessment criteria and ranking

For the day-to-day business it is important that the demonstrated performance of suppliers is on a high level in terms of delivery time, delivery reliability and product quality. Performance can be measured by making use of supplier ratings (Prahinski and Benton, 2004). By identifying performance of a company, one can make use of the five general operations performance objectives developed by Slack et al. (2010) which are:

1. Quality: Refers to delivering error-free goods and services to customers

2. Speed: Refers to delivering fast, minimize the time between a customer asking for goods or service and the customer receiving them in full.

3. Dependability: refers to doing things on time, so keep delivery promises that have been made. 4. Flexibility: Refers to be able to change. Be able to cope with unexpected circumstances. 5. Cost: Refers to doing things cheaply.

A number of studies have examined the criteria used by buying firms to assess supplier performance. Whereas Watts and Hahn (1993) describe four capability areas, where quality is indicated as most important, followed by cost, delivery and technical capabilities, Kannan and Tan (2002) appoint the following elements of supplier assessment criteria:

Criteria (Kannan and Tan, 2002) Quality level

Service level On-time delivery Correct quantity Price/cost of product

Quick response in case of emergency

The flexibility to respond to unexpected demand changes Presence of certification or other documentation

Willingness to change their products and services to meet the changing needs

Communication skills (phone / email / internet)

Willingness to participate in your firm’s new product development and value analysis Willingness to share sensitive information

Use of electronic data interchange (EDI)

Figure 2: Selection Criteria

An extended analysis about measuring performance of suppliers was performed by Simpson et al. (2002). They conclude that quality, continuous improvement and facility environment are the three main evaluation criteria. The form of evaluation which is applied in most of the cases is a type of rating that includes a rating scale, has a quality weight system and ranks the suppliers based on the criteria and weights.

(12)

Next to defining criteria to assess suppliers on their performance there are different methods to rank suppliers. A recent extensive study of Ho et al. (2009) describes supplier evaluation and selection methods based on 78 articles from 2000 till 2008. They concluded that there are eight types of decision making approaches and hybrids to them. The approaches are; analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytical network process (ANP), case-based reasoning (CBR), data envelopment analysis (DEA), fuzzy set theory, genetic algorithm (GA), mathematical programming, simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART). These techniques are used in helping to make a decision of which supplier to select. The article elaborates on the multi-criteria decision making approaches individual of each other and several options are integrated.

One of these methods can also be applied in ranking suppliers for supplier development. The following research question is formulated:

“Which assessment criteria and ranking methods related to performance and capabilities are used in the case companies?”

Common methods and instruments for measuring supplier performance are not suitable for applying at core suppliers or alliances with suppliers (Rietveld, 2010). Here, customization is needed, based on the alliance strategy and derived KPI’s. Rietveld refers to the work of Hughes (2005) who states that purchasing departments often spend a lot of energy in developing supplier scorecards. No matter, how sophisticated these scorecards are, the outcome itself will not lead to better results, but the way both parties (buyer and supplier) act according to those outcomes is important.

For the large truck manufacturer a supplier development program is planned to start. Nevertheless, a tool to select suppliers based on assessed criteria and a ranking method is lacking. Based on theory and practical importance the following research question is formulated.

(13)

3. Method

The following section is the description of the research method. First the research question and the sub-questions will be described. Then the research method which is applied is formulated. The final part of this section concerns the data collection and research execution will be described.

3.1 Research questions

Derived from the introduction, and based on the problem statement and literature review this thesis strives to answer the following research question:

“How can suppliers be assessed and ranked in order to identify potential suppliers for a development program?

Based on the literature review several sub questions are identified in order to enable a better and underpinned analysis of the several aspects of the overall research question. The first two sub-questions are focusing on the effect of purchasing approaches regarding supplier development and are formulated as follows:

1. “What is the impact of portfolio purchasing strategies in order to prioritize suppliers for supplier development?”

2. “How does the relation of power between buyer and supplier influence the priority for supplier development?”

The following research sub-questions refer to the assessment and ranking criteria. Sub-question 3 covers all case companies, sub-question 4 focuses only on the truck manufacturer:

3. “Which assessment criteria and ranking methods related to performance and capabilities are used at the case companies to determine supplier development potentials?”

4. “How can a tool be developed, incorporating assessment criteria, to select supplier development potentials for a large truck manufacturer?”

(14)

3.2 Research method and data collection

The thesis research design is an exploratory and qualitative study. The aim is to add an approach c.q. theory to literature whereas companies can identify and rank supplier development prospects. The tool which will be developed is based on a multiple case-study. Finally, a tool for identifying supplier development potentials will be established for a large truck manufacturer.

The study is differentiated into two stages. The first stage of the research is focused on identifying appropriate criteria to identify critical commodities and critical suppliers. The collection of data was extract from multiple sources, containing a literature review, numerous semi-structured interviews at the case companies with procurement professionals.

First a literature review was conducted to identify the most relevant information regarding supplier development. A range of databases were researched with the keywords ‘supplier development’, ‘purchasing strategy’, ‘supplier selection’ and ‘supplier assessment’.

For answering sub-questions 1 and 2, the Kraljic-portfolio and related portfolio approaches are taken as a starting point. On the one hand, because it is part of the ten-step supplier development approach by Krause (1998), on the other hand because the fact that Kraljic-portfolio thinking is still leading in the purchasing profession (Gelderman en Van Weele, 2003).

in favor of sub-questions 1, 2 and 3, it was decided to make use of multiple cases. Eisenhardt (1989b) stated that case studies are the most appropriate method to generate a theory, which allows empirical testing afterwards.

By making use of semi-structured interviews with procurement professionals of the

case-companies, insight is gathered of their approach regarding supplier development. The first part of the questionnaire of Krause et al (1998) was adopted to structure the interviews.1_{Nevertheless,}

additional information is been asked, for the opportunity to identify additional information that was not covered by literature.

The interviewees needed to work in a procurement environment for several years and had an active role in supplier development activities. All interviews were face-to-face and took place on the site of the company. The required time was between 60 and 120 minutes. The answers of the interviewees were summarized in the end of the interview for verification.

Besides me, an additional student of the University of Groningen was present at the interviews. In order to create validity of the answers, a discussion about the interpretation of the answers was completed afterwards. When the information was too limited to make conclusions, answers are skipped (presented in the thesis as No Answer, n.a.) or addition information was asked from the interviewee. In sequence of the interviews, it was able to portray an overview of the previous companies. Consequently, some assumptions could be tested with ‘progressive knowledge’ from

the other case companies. The second stage of the thesis focused on assessing and order criteria in terms of importance. This

measurement is important to answer sub-question 4. The basis of answering this question is

1

(15)

similar to the first stage, but the focus lies on one single organization, the truck manufacturer. Whereas in the first stage interviews were executed with procurement professionals, now

employees from supplier quality assurance (SQA) were added to get a comprehensive overview. Due to time constraints it was not able to examine all types of approaches regarding supplier evaluation methods. Since the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most used process based on the research of Ho et al (2009) this model is the starting point of the ranking. In their research they refer to different hybrids of this model. Liu and Hai (2005) applied AHP to evaluate and select suppliers, where the authors did not apply the AHP’s pairwise comparison to determine the relative importance ratings among the criteria and sub-factors. Instead they used a voting ranking method, which allowed every manager to vote or determine the order of criteria. For this research the approach is adopted on a similar way, the criteria which should be ranked are based on the assessment criteria of Kannan and Tan (2002). The discrete options are ranged from 1 till 5.2_{The interviews were taken with 3 purchasing director and each interview took approximately}

120 minutes. In addition two commodity manager (procurement) and two SQA-managers were interviewed around 90 minutes per person. Finally, the SQA-director was interviewed for 60 minutes.

3.3 The case study sample

The case companies are chosen based on the model of Keough (1993). Keough (1993) describes that the evolution of the purchasing function can be divided into five stages (figure 3). For

answering sub-question 4 and the main research question it is important to determine the level of maturity in terms of supplier development of all case-companies.

Philips Healthcare is manufacturer of complex healthcare equipment like imagine machines. ASML builds lithography machines for chip manufacturers. Both companies are allocated in the model of Keogh (1993) as capital goods. The main objective of Volkswagen is to build cars so the company can be assigned to the automotive industry.

The truck manufacturer builds also capital goods, but has a so called “fast follow” strategy to the automotive industry. DAF can be assigned between the capital goods and automotive industry. Due to confidentiality some companies were not willing to share all information with us. In answering the research questions, information was sometimes insufficient. In those cases it is reported for each part of the results.

Low High Time Pharma-ceuticals Financial services Mechanical components Consumer products Chemicals _Capital goods Automobile industry Micro-computers “Serving the factory” “Lowest costs per _unit” “Coordinated_{purchasing”} “Cross-functional

purchasing”

“World-class supply management”

Purchasing Results

Figure 3: Purchasing development model (Keough, 1993)

2

(16)

4. Data analysis

The next session focuses on the examination of the case studies. First the organizations will be introduced through a short overview in the following section. Afterwards the results are described followed by a discussion.

4.1 Description of the case-companies

The following table provides an overview of the most important data of the companies which are included in the interview during the explorative study. The vertical axis of the table is formulated to give a general overview of the case-companies. Information is formulated during the interviews or from annual reports.

Criteria

DAF

Volkswagen

ASML

Philips Healthcare

Truck ma nufa cturi ng Automobi l e Indus try Ca pi ta l goods Nr. 3 Europe Nr. 2 Worl dwi de Nr 1. Worl dwi de

Employees 8.000 400.000 8.000 38.000

Purchasing empl. 80 (+25 SQA) 1.800 N.A. N.A.

Turnover € 5.0 ml d € 126 ml d € 5.7 ml d € 8.8 ml d

Interview partner s r. SQA, s r. Purcha s i ng ma na gement

As s i s ta nt Purcha s i ng Ma na ger

Buyer Stra tegi c buyer

Supply base product related 470, (+/- 40 s tra tegi c) +/- 500 (ti l l 1000) 600, (+/- 40 Stra tegi c) n.a . Country production sites Netherl a nds , Bel gi um,

Engl a nd, (Bra zi l 2013)

41 l oca ti ons worl dwi de Netherl a nds , Ta i wa n, Ameri ca

Netherl a nds , Germa ny, BRIC- countri es

Industry Ca pi ta l goods

Table 1: Company overview

4.2 Results

The first part of the result section describes the case companies in terms of purchasing strategies and examines the activities per case companies regarding supplier development. The elaboration of the case companies is not described in order to answer a sub-question, but to get a point of

reference of the four companies. The results from data gathering which can be applied to answer the sub-questions is described in 4.2.1. and subsequent paragraphs. The information is adopted from Krause’s questionnaire (1998). As described in the method part, interviews took place, afterwards summarized and verified with the interviewee.

DAF

The truck manufacturer holds a number 3 market share position in Europe and this share is increasing. About 8.000 employees are working on three different sites of the company. The total turnover is about €5.0 billion and the purchasing spend is approximately 60% of it.

(17)

Volkswagen

This Auto manufacturer is employer of approximately 400.000 employees and the main goal of the manufacturer is to be the best and largest car manufacturer in the world by 2018. Currently, 30.000 cars a day are being produced at 41 production locations worldwide.

The total spend of purchasing is €89.7 billion. A strategy of this company is to source more locally. First because the Just-in-Time production approach requires this, secondly communication and alignment with suppliers becomes easier.

In general the organization is facing several challenges which are translated into 4 main purchasing strategies. The first challenge concerns scarcity of resources/raw materials. The second strategy focuses on managing the global supply chain in terms of transparency, risks and multiple tier management. The third risk regards bankruptcy of suppliers which can lead to disruption in the supply chain. Finally, the organization perceives a tendency of an increasing concentration of suppliers. Large suppliers are expanding their business model by acquisition and becoming larger and larger. Consequently, dependency on a limited number of suppliers rises.

ASML

The purchasing strategy of the company is derived from the company strategy and is called “value sourcing”. Value Sourcing starts with the end-customer and is translated into three main strategy areas. The first strategy concerns Customer focus and growth market share. To achieve this strategy the company focuses on outstanding customer satisfaction and most reliable product performance. The second strategy topic is “Technology Leadership”. By developing the most advanced roadmap and the highest product Value of Ownership the organization wants to achieve this goal. The third strategy pillar regards Operational Excellence which exists of being financially the strongest company of the market throughout the market cycles, agility and short lead times.

Philips

The healthcare division of this company focuses on development of imagine systems like patient monitoring and early detection equipment. The turnover of this company is approximately €9.0 billion. The total spend to suppliers regards €5.6 billion. The manufacturing takes places in several countries like the Netherlands, and BRIC countries. These BRIC countries are chosen because there is an increasing market which requires products of this company and not because of the low costs of the workforce. The company indicates, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam as Low cost country for employees with low wages. Consequently, suppliers are also located all over the world. Purchasing strategies are based on the Kraljic-portfolio. For all the products in the strategic field the

purchasing department requires no single source relationships.

(18)

Supplier development activities

The companies which were examined during this assignment all had some experience with supplier development activities. The approach and the range of activities and involvement of the own organization differs however. Next, an overview of the case companies is given about the supplier development approach (reactive vs. strategic). The vertical part of the table describes the different criteria and is adopted from Krause (1998). The answers are based on the interviews during the case-study and are verified after the interviews. The aim is to distinguish the four case-companies from each other and to observe where overlapping approaches can be appointed.

Question DAF Volkswagen ASML Philips Healthcare

Experienced with supplier development

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Multidisciplinary teams? Yes, limited, initiative purchasing

Yes, 200 specialists Yes, Quality, logistics, purchasing/engineering

Yes, purchasing as facilitator.

Criteria

Correction of supplier deficiency or Continuous impr. Of supply base

Correction of supplier deficiency

Continuous improvement of the supply base

Continuous improvement of the supply base Short-term improvement vs.

long-term competitive advantage

Short-term / medium term improvements Medium term improvement Long-term competitive advantage Long-term competitive advantage

Focus on single supplier vs. focus on supply base

Focus on single supplier Focus on single suppliers (in case of emergency)

Focus on supply base Focus on supply base (strategic suppliers) Problem-driven vs.

market-driven

Problem-driven Problem-driven Market-driven Market-driven Selection through? Poor performance and

additional criteria

Modified approach Modified approach Modified approach

Experience with supplier development

Approach (Krause 1998)

Table 2: Supplier development approach

The outcome of the different approaches shows that two of the four companies have a more strategic approach regarding supplier development. As the section “correction of deficiencies or continuous improvement of the supply base” indicate, DAF and Volkswagen have a reactive approach in the sense of focusing only on poor performing suppliers, problem driven, instead of total supply base and market driven.

(19)

Activities (Direct) DAF Volkswagen ASML Philips Healthcare Site visit by buying firm to

help improve suppliers

Yes, SQA Yes, team of 200 specialists

Yes, Focus on quality Yes, focus on quality

Invite supplier to buyer’s site

Yes, Yes Yes Yes

Training and education of suppliers personnel

Yes, Six Sigma training Yes, different training facilities

No information Yes, different training facilities and topics. Invest equipment in

supplier’s operation

Yes, DAF tools always own property.

Yes, VW’s tools own property

Yes, in emergencies Limited Invest Capital in

supplier’s operation

Yes, via supplier investments program,

Yes Yes, also countercyclical Yes, also offer Philips banking conditions to suppliers

Invest human and organizational resources

Yes, limited (on the sidelines)

Yes, with specialists Yes, Quality with suppliers quality

Yes, requesting for people investments at Supplier Activities (Indirect) DAF Volkswagen ASML Philips Healthcare Use multiple suppliers Both, Focus on single

suppliers

Yes, always multiple Yes, focus on dual Yes, dual and competitive partnerships

Switching Yes, if possible Yes, if possible Very limited Between partners Evaluation with suppliers Yes formal tools, supplier

has continuous insight in performance

Yes formal tools, supplier has continuous insight in performance

Supplier certification program

Yes, by awards, not dedicated DAF certificate

No information No information No information Assessment of suppliers

performance

Yes, No formal standardized program

Yes, continuously Yes, Quarterly feedback moments (QLTC)

Yes, quarterly based on QLTC approach

Incentives Yes, Long Term Agreements Yes, Long Term Agreements Yes, Long Term Agreements Yes, Long Term Agreements Performance awards Yes, Quality awards Yes, Best Suppliers Award Yes. Yes, Formal award

program

Table 3: Supplier development activities

Table 3 gives a summary of the supplier development activities of the four companies. The first results illustrate that all companies are quite experienced in indirect supplier development

activities. The main similarities are that all companies evaluate their suppliers on a systematic and formal method and thereby make use of incentives and performance awards. In contrast, a difference occurs in the number of suppliers per commodity. Where DAF has many single supplier strategies, other companies are differentiating their risk of supplies among dual or even multiple suppliers. The influence of these purchasing strategies is described in the next paragraph. Furthermore direct supplier development activities are implemented at all companies. All

companies offer the opportunity for suppliers to visit their sites. Also, training and education facilities exist for their suppliers. Where DAF focuses on education of Six Sigma personnel to increase the quality of suppliers, Philips goes beyond that approach by offering dedicated supplier trainings in different fields. Philips developed a purchasing course for suppliers to increase the capabilities of suppliers. Whereas Philips sees it as an investment in the supply chain to increase quality and delivery performance or even lower costs, DAF requires a financial investment of their suppliers to secure commitment from the supplier.

Next paragraphs will elaborate on the sub-questions in order to give an answer on the main research question.

(20)

4.2.1 Identification of critical commodities

This section gives an overview of the results of the first sub question and strives to answer it. The research question is formulated as follow:

“What is the impact of portfolio purchasing strategies related to prioritizing suppliers for supplier development?”

Question DAF Volkswagen ASML Philips Healthcare

Direct and Indirect supplier development?

Yes, Indirect, about to start a direct program

Yes, Direct and Indirect Yes, Direct and Indirect Yes, Direct and Indirect

Using Kraljic-Portfolio Yes Yes Yes Yes

Additional models Yes, Dutch Windmill – bottom 25 Vendor rating Quality - Logistics

Yes, Purchasing and quality rating

Yes, QLTC approach Yes, Dutch Windmill Engineering/ Technology rating Focus area’s Denpends on type of

development program

Strategic Strategic/bottleneck Strategic / Bottleneck Table 4: Portfolio approach for supplier development

Volkswagen indicates strategic and bottleneck items as most important quadrants to focus on with development activities. One of the objectives of the central purchasing department is identify the total supply chain network of these items. From risk management perspective it is important to know where critical parts are being produced and where support is needed in the supply chain to secure delivery.

Also ASML indicate the focus on strategic and bottleneck items, since the vulnerability in these items are higher than routine and leverage items. But ASML point out that all suppliers are very willing to work with them because of the market position of ASML. Therefore close collaboration with many strategic and bottleneck suppliers are possible.

Philips has a global approach to identify the critical commodities and Kraljic is used as the first step to regulate the items.

In contrast DAF makes a distinction between critical items which can influence the internal processes and items which are critical to end-customers. Critical for internal processes contain products which lead to a stop of production. The objective of the manufacturer is to work in a constant flow. If product of suppliers lead to a stop of the assembly line, the impact is high in terms of costs.

On the other hand it is possible that trucks who are delivered to customers are confronted with a ‘road side breakdown’. This has a negative impact on the image for DAF, warranty claims must be paid or even customer solution orders should be accomplished, resulting in high costs.

Kraljic purchasing portfolio model is still leading to position commodities in the organization who attended the interviews. The model is used to develop separate purchasing strategies per

(21)

Leverage Strategic

Routine Bottleneck

• Key purchasses • High volume • Cost is vital

• Quality and availability is critical

• Vulnerability high • Delivery is fragile • Risk Management • Good planning is required • High impact on profits

• No supply market constraints • Standard specs • Low value items • Many alternatives • Routine purchases • Your majority of items

Positioning: Product differentiation

Figure 4: Product differentiation (Kraljic-portfolio)

It can be concluded that the Kraljic-approach is still a leading tool to identify critical commodities, but mainly in terms of risk of supply and influence on profit. It is a good tool to make commodities visible who are more difficult to subtract from the market. Unfortunately, the Kraljic-approach does not indicate criticality for end-customers. Additional information is needed for that.

While all companies had a fair way of determining suppliers according the Kraljic-model, there is a difference in determining supplier development prospects. Discussing the four quadrants in the context of supplier development suppliers of Strategic and Bottleneck items are indicated as prior for supplier development according three of the four companies. A purchasing director of DAF argues that the concentration of developing suppliers should start with leverage suppliers where one could switch rather easily. ASML indicate about 40 suppliers are indicated as strategic important and consequently treated that way (20% of total supply base). These 40 suppliers are accountable for 80 to 90% of the purchasing turnover and subsequent responsible for 80-90% responsible for the performance of the company. Their position is that when you want to improve your own product you should focus on suppliers of these 80 to 90%.

Table 1 shows that DAF and Volkswagen need approximately 500 suppliers for producing respectively a truck and car. The number of strategic suppliers at DAF is 60; Volkswagens and Philips did not share this figure.

The purchasing department of DAF indicate that a large reduction of the supply base was realized in the past to be able to concentrate spend and be able to manage the purchasing portfolio. For supplier development DAF is the only company who indicate suppliers of leverage items as candidates for a development program. The main reason for leverage suppliers is because of the possibility to switch if the supplier is not able to improve as much as requested.

In the research of Krause et al. (1998) it appears that high risk, high volume and high value-added suppliers are classified as development prospects. As a conclusion can be stated that the Kraljic-portfolio is still a first good step for indicating critical commodities. Also all companies indicate that determining suppliers for a development program on two axes is limited, further analysis is

(22)

determining critical commodities. Hence, it is not the only indication of determining suppliers as a potential for a development program. Additional information is needed and the next paragraph elaborates on this required information.

4.2.2 Identification of critical suppliers

The following paragraph elaborates on the power position of the buying firm compared to a supplier and answers the second research question which is formulated as:

“How does the relation of power between buyer and supplier influence the priority for supplier development?”

In developing a purchasing strategy for a product group it is important to consider the value of the own company in respect to the supplier to indicate the level of importance from suppliers view. Figure 5 shows an overview of the differentiation of a customer from supplier perspective.

Exploitable customer

Core customer

Nuisance Development _customer

• Exploit customer • Drive premium price • Seek short-term

advantage

• Risk losing the customer • Divest position • Give customer low

attention • Lose without pain

• Defend position • Cosset the customer • High service and response

• Develop position • Nurture the client • Expand business • Seek new opportunities Supplier Strategy differentiation

Figure 5: Suppliers’ view

There is a major difference between DAF and the other case companies regarding the approach of indicating importance of a company compared to suppliers’ view. The main difference between DAF and the other case companies regards the market share position of the organization. Volkswagen is the second largest manufacturer of cars in the world and the power towards suppliers is enormous. ASML is facing the same advantage since they have a world market share of 80%. Whereas

Volkswagen is willing to exploit their position, ASML indicate that this power position is not used to pressure costs, since the fluctuation of the Semiconductor market cycles are very high. They experienced in the past an increase of output of 200% within a year and the reversed a few years later. Consequently, suppliers need to be very flexible in ramp up scenarios and retain downturn flexibility. Philips is not expanding their ideas regarding power towards suppliers. Their principle is to collaborate with suppliers to increase market share and get a competitive advantage. Philips uses the suppliers view to determine the kind of relationship and approach towards the market. A model was created which combine as well the Kraljic-matrix as the suppliers view in the so-called “Dutch windmill”.3

3

(23)

The argument of DAF for focusing on leverage items within the scope of supplier development has a strong link with the suppliers’ view towards DAF. As a purchasing director from DAF stated: “Most strategic suppliers will exploit us, because of our position in the market. They see us as a small customer where they can make profit.”

A development program is not the most suitable option, other possibilities should proposed here. In contrast, Volkswagen argues from another perspective. Their buying power is compared to all their suppliers in their advantage, supplier development programs can be imposed instead of requested.

The outcomes of the interviews at the case companies are consistent with the proposed framework of Bensaou (1999). The framework describes relationship based on specific investments by both buyer and supplier in the relationship.

Figure 6: Bensaou (1999)

The most important result is that power seems to have influence on the choice of identifying suppliers for a development program. Whereas three out of the four case companies have a high world market share and face limited problems to determine supplier development potentials who are willing to collaborate is such programs, DAF as a smaller organization in the market faces more problems in choosing suppliers who are willing to collaborate in a development program.

DAF is facing the effects as described by Caniels and Gelderman (2005) that a relationship in the strategic quadrant has an asymmetric power balance towards a captive buyer situation. The other case companies refer to a more balanced power relationship, but also have elements of an

asymmetric buyer-supplier relationship in favor of the buying firm towards a captive supplier situation.

(24)

4.2.3 Ranking methods for supplier development

This section elaborates on the mapping and ranking methods of suppliers and answers the following sub-question:

“Which assessment criteria and ranking methods related to performance and capabilities are used in the case companies?”

Unfortunately, not all details about underlying ranking methods are shared during the interviews. Nevertheless an overview is given and in more detail the situation at DAF is discussed.

Volkswagen

The purchasing department in cooperation with the quality department are mapping current and future suppliers (based on market selection methods) in a graphical map stated in fig 7,two dimension are assessed, which are strategic importance from purchasing point of view versus Quality level determined by the quality department. Within quality ranking three different categories are defined. A-suppliers are delivering the right quality in the current situation. The B-category exist of suppliers whose performance is medium which indicate improvement

opportunities in terms of Quality. C-category suppliers deliver a poor performance. The aim is to develop suppliers to the A-category. In cases where development is not an option, switching opportunities are researched.

A = good performance B = medium performance C = poor performance

Purchasing and Quality Rating

Strategic importance Quality Ranking P Q High Medium Low C B A

(25)

Philips

The manufacturer of healthcare equipment determines their development prospect by making use of competitive partnerships. As mentioned earlier the product group strategy of strategic items requires dual sourcing agreements. When a project is about to start a commodity team is

responsible for sourcing the internal specs at the supply market. By the process of creating product specifications, the team determines also the level of engineering which have to be outsourced. This make or buy decision is based on technical complexity and the ability of the firm to make it or to buy it on the market. This is a tradeoff based on costs and complexity.

When the level of outsourcing is defined, the purchasing department is responsible for finding the most applicable supplier. In cases of dual sourcing they define the level of engineering and technology complexity as stated in figure 9.

No engineering Components Assembly Life cycle management Supply Chain Concept engineering Level of Engineering Technology complexity

Engineering and Technology Development

Figure 9: E & T development Philips

For dual sourcing, two suppliers receive a Request for Quotation (RfQ) to make an offer to the tender. Based on that offer the suppliers are ranked in order to determine the position in the development stage. By awarding business to the most appropriate supplier the other supplier receives feedback on the improvement areas. The incentive of improving lies in the fact that future business can be awarded to the supplier when they are able to show their improvements.

(26)

ASML

ASML is managing their strategy towards suppliers on a balanced way in terms of Risk, Move rate and Performance. Risks can be reduced by supplier risk management programs and reduction of the complexity. Move rates contain the ability of a supplier and suppliers’ network to steep ramp-up capabilities and retain the downturn flexibility. Performance is being measured by a QLTC-approach (Quality, Logistics, Technology and total Costs). Furthermore cost reduction including redesign possibilities and industrializing of new technology are important.

QLTC items are the Key Performance Indicators and are continuously measured and managed through improvement initiatives. These QLTC items are contractually arranged in Long Term Agreements, managed by cross-functional teams and documented in the supplier profile. These profiles are including 2nd_{tiers suppliers. On a quarterly basis progress is measured and}

improvement initiatives assessed. Improvement initiatives are based on the delta which arise due to the required performance and delivered performance.

This QLTC-approach is a supply chain management concept that the needs and requirements of the client’s translates to performance requirements throughout the total supply chain during the entire product life cycle.

(27)

DAF

As stated in the previous paragraphs DAF’s strategy for supplier development is based on a confrontation of suppliers of the leverage quadrant and bottleneck quadrant to the suppliers view. A next step is to determine the suppliers where successes can be booked in terms of value creation or reduced costs.

The first selection criterion is to indicate the turnover which is visualized in a Pareto analysis. The next step is to indicate critical commodities and suppliers for development. Based on the power balance in the supplier-buyer relationship (i.e. confrontation between buyers’ view and suppliers’ view) suppliers are indicated as prospect for supplier development programs. Prioritizing of these suppliers is currently done by poor performing suppliers. Based on a value-stream map and/or a muda-walk waste is detected to determine the areas of improvements. In accordance with a supplier the approach for a supplier development program is discussed. A final step for DAF is to select suppliers who are located nearby the DAF factory, because of the Pilot-phase of supplier development. Nevertheless, there arises a discussion about the type of supplier development activities and the criteria for selecting appropriate suppliers for a development program.

Referring to the criteria used to identify supplier development potentials it is able to state that the approaches differs per case company. Whereas ASML and Philips are defining the future capabilities of suppliers, Volkswagen and DAF are ranking suppliers more based on quality performance. Some additional information from Philips and Volkswagen are lacking because of confidentiality purpose. This makes it more difficult to elaborate on the underlying elements of supplier mapping.

All companies attempts to choose the best company for a development program, nevertheless a uniform approach is missing. The methods to rank and assess the criteria it is not able to give a complete answer for this sub-question. There is limited insight in the methods which are used, weighing of the elements or detail information in ranking. It is not possible to refer to Ho et al (2009) who describe the different multi-criteria ranking methods.

4.2.4 Supplier assessment

The processes of mapping suppliers for a supplier development program is evaluated in the previous sub-questions. This paragraph expands on the supplier assessment for the focal case company DAF. Based on the previous sub-questions an answer can be given to the main research question which is defined as follows:

“How can a tool be developed, incorporating important assessment criteria, to select supplier development potentials for a large truck manufacturer?”

The approach of DAF to select and rank suppliers is based on several criteria. First of all a Pareto is made of the turnover of suppliers. 80% Of the turnover can be assigned to approximately 20% of the suppliers. Based on that, DAF should first focus on those 20% of the supply base.

The second step is to indicate suppliers who deliver critical commodities to DAF, this can be based on the Kraljic-portfolio as proposed by the answer of sub-question 1.

(28)

opportunities regarding the type of supplier development activity. Furthermore, the power position includes items as switching effort and risk which is important to select suppliers for a development program. Suppliers with limited switching options and high risk are less likely to select for a program than suppliers with switching possibilities and reduced risk.

The fourth step contains positioning suppliers according to their past performance. For developing the assessment tool the following steps are taken:

1. Define broad objectives

2. Breakdown in measurable goals 3. Define the discrete scoring options 4. Score the options against its goals 5. Choose the weights for each goal 6. Rank the options

By ranking the criteria formulated by Kannan and Tan (2002), it can be observed that the differences of the position in importance are quite limited. The purchasing department is in particular responsible for keeping the total costs manageable; consequently they indicate costs as the most valuable criteria. SQA is responsible for managing the right quality, so quality level is indicated as the most important criteria. Furthermore both departments indicate the importance of on-time delivery and just-in-sequence delivery. Also, when the amount of products exceeds the required amount, the supplier will receive a negative score on this performance measurement.

Criteria Purchasing SQA

Quality level 2 1

Service level 7 7

On-time delivery 3 2

Correct quantity 4 3

Price/cost of product 1 6

Quick response in case of emergency 5 4

The flexibility to respond to unexpected demand changes 6 8

Presence of certification or other documentation 8 5

Willingness to change their products and services to meet the changing

needs n.a. n.a.

Communication skills (phone / email / internet) n.a. n.a. Willingness to participate in your firm’s new product development and

value analysis n.a. n.a.

Willingness to share sensitive information n.a. n.a.

Use of electronic data interchange (EDI) n.a. n.a.

Table 5: Selection Criteria

(29)

When an additional criterion is proposed about the financial health of suppliers it can be concluded that this has the attention of many managers. The interviewees of the purchasing department refer to the control function of the department who is responsible for that. Suppliers with a poor financial health situation are treated differently and are no supplier development potentials. For the

assessment tool the criterion can be skipped.

Figure 11 gives an overview of the results including a hierarchy based on the discussions at DAF. The criteria where n.a. is stated point out that there is not one answer possible due to product differences whether the criteria is not really relevant. In addition, for example flexibility is indicated as important but this is secured in contracts (flexibility levels for ramp up and down) and

unexpected demand changes are in this sector restricted.

A final remark is that the value of criteria can change over time, or depends on type of product group. By developing an assessment tool, criteria should be weighted to define the importance.

Topic Criteria Weight

Quality VRQ 15 CSO 10 Logistics _VRL 10 Continuous Improvement ISO TS 16949 10 CMP's (#/€) 10 6Sigma (#/€) 10

Cost improvement _{% reduction} 10

Technology improvement _{Latest technology} 5

Positioning (Competitive position)

Turnover 5

Switching effort (time) 5 Risk (alternatives) 5

Power of supplier 5

Figure 11: Assessment criteria DAF

Quality is the most important aspect according to a diversity of employees within DAF. When a customer is placed as central and leading object of the firm, quality should be assessed as most important. The margins of transportation companies are very limited, only 1% to max 2%. This implies that every “road side breakdown” direct influences the profit of the company. To that logic, reliability of the truck is the most important value of clients and for DAF. Reliability of the truck can only be achieved with reliable suppliers, with reliable products. The hierarchy of measurements is PPM-score (<50PPM is excellent), followed by a Customer Solution Order number. This last subject implies that dedicated actions are required to a supplier to change the specific part.

Secondly, Logistics is important, but this influences more the own operations of DAF. Since there is only a small amount of inventory available in the production area, time and

just-in-sequence is important.

(30)

Other measurements within the truck manufacturer for CI are the number of Six Sigma projects and the number of Cost Management Programs (CMP). Not only the number of projects is

important, even more important is what the results are in terms of Costs or Quality improvement (which lead to lower costs as well).

Last, the cost development and latest technology of a product can be visualized. These numbers give an overview if the supplier is able to realize a decrease in product costs, and if a supplier is willing to share the cost benefits of CMP projects. The latest technological is relevant to secure the competitive position in the market. Competitive positioning is described later in this paragraph. Based on the above mentioned criteria, supplier can be assessed in their performances over time. Next to that, DAF can set goals for all criteria, and get insight in the speed of improvement of the supplier. Appendix 3 gives an extended overview of the assessment criteria with detailed score possibilities ranging from 1 to 5 where 1 is very good and 5 very poor. Figure 12 provides an overview of the results of such a ranking.

Figure 12: Example result supplier assessment

Now suppliers are ranked according to the main important assessment criteria of DAF. The information is available and can be structured in such a format. The assessment tool only say something about a supplier in isolation, unfortunately, it does not give an overview/indication about the performance and power position of a single supplier in relation with other suppliers. Also in literature there is a lack of information regarding this topic. Next model is an addition to

literature in terms of mapping suppliers as development potential. Based on the previous information it is possible to map suppliers and offers the possibility to see deviations from one another.

Basically, there are two axes where suppliers can be ranked at to determine the position of a supplier. First it is important to rate suppliers according to their performance. This is defined as the total outcome of the topics; quality, logistics, continuous improvement, cost improvement and technology improvement (see figure 10). The second axis concerns the positioning (competitive position) of a buying firm in relation to a supplier. This position can be determined by making use of Kraljic-portfolio combined with the suppliers’ view to the buying organization.

(31)

The combination of positioning and performance level delivers a positioning on the next figure which I created to visualize the suppliers amongst the values of performance and power. The model is a comprehensive model of Kraljic (1983) and the most important criteria of Kannan and Tan (2002) where competitive position of Simpson et al. (2002) is added.

Figure 13: Mapping suppliers for a development program

Figure 13 gives an overview of suppliers and the positioning according to two main criteria. Both criteria are balanced and weighted on several criteria, based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. The overview also shows the turnover of the supplier. A high turnover is visualized with a large circle and vice versa. When a supplier is assigned to one of the four quadrants, four options arise, train convince, cooperate, reallocate.

This model is useful for identifying supplier potentials for a development program. When the supply base exists of hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of suppliers a qualification of suppliers for a development program is needed. This tool will rectify the problem for choosing the right

companies, since every quadrant describes different activities for supplier development and ‘low hanging fruit’ is visualized in this model.

Left bottom: Train

In this situation, a supplier has a high power position compared to DAF and the performance is low. Depending on the type of power (limited switching effort, or proven low costs) the advice is to train the supplier and assist the supplier by making use of SQA/specialists with reforming processes and improve the root causes of the poor performance. The development activities should be initiated by the SQA-department.

Left upper: Convince

(32)

is to investigate options for combining purchasing power to second/third tier suppliers. Addition it is possible to develop the suppliers’ purchasing department processes. This is only possible when DAF is able to determine the development potential of the purchasing department of the supplier. Right upper: Cooperate

Cooperation between buyer and supplier in terms of development is applicable to situations where suppliers have limited power but performing well. In these circumstances, training and

development at supplier and buyers side is applicable in other words learn from each other and integrate business processes to optimize the collaboration. In cases when performance of a supplier in this segment is decreasing, DAF can put ‘pressure’ to increase the performance to desired levels.

Right bottom: Reallocate

The suppliers acting is this quadrant deliver a poor performance and in terms of power their

position is low. The performance of suppliers in this quadrant calls for a more drastic approach, and the advice is to switch to other suppliers. As kraljic (1983) already stated the general idea of the portfolio approach is to minimize the supply vulnerability and make the most of potential buying power. Power and dependence play a significant role in this approach and both are in favor of DAF. Reallocation of these items is advised to this quadrant when suppliers are performing poor.

4.3 Discussion

In literature, the first two steps for supplier development are identifying critical commodities and identifying critical suppliers (Krause 1998). The results from the case-study companies show a similar approach.

Identifying critical commodities for a development program can be executed by filling the Kraljic-portfolio which incorporates supply risk and financial impact for a buying company. The case companies’ results show that this approach is still leading in Purchasing to determine a strategy. A differentiation should be made between the impact of risk for the internal customer and for the impact of customers.

Supplier development: An Assessment tool to identify supplier development potentials

-Master Thesis-