The company had no structured supplier performance system. When issues arose with a vendor, data had to be pulled and consolidated on demand — a reactive process that took 2–3 days per supplier. With 100+ active vendors and no continuous monitoring, problems often escalated before anyone had a clear picture.
Scores that were given to vendors were vague and unanchored to real data. They couldn't be traced back to a source, couldn't be proven, and in some cases the underlying data simply didn't exist. OTIF issues were missed. Decisions on which suppliers to grow or cut were being made on gut feel rather than evidence.
"This dashboard will help to achieve our target of reducing suppliers from 100+ to 70, aligning with our future strategy of working with very good, reliable suppliers."
Director
I spent the first phase defining a performance framework that could replace subjective scoring with measurable, data-backed ratings. Six dimensions were identified as the core of supplier health: OTIF, Quality, Communication & Collaboration, Pricing, Value Added to the company, and Industry 4.0 Readiness.
The dashboard was structured across three pages. The main overview used a spider/radar chart to visualise each vendor's rating across all six dimensions at a glance — making it immediately obvious where a supplier was strong or failing. A separate zero tolerance page surfaced any vendor breaching non-negotiable thresholds that required immediate action.
The third page was the Communication & Collaboration detail view — vendors were ranked by input from all departments, and each department could log scores and comments directly within the tool. This turned the dashboard into a two-way channel: internal teams could communicate with suppliers through the platform rather than via scattered emails.
The Industry 4.0 dimension tracked manufacturing capability: 3D design, SMV calculation, Auto Spreader, Auto Cutter, in-line automation, ESG integration, Laser Cutting, and Mini Marker capabilities. This gave procurement a forward-looking lens on which suppliers were investing in modernisation — not just current performance.
Data refresh was designed to be flexible: automatic on new vendor entry, seasonal scheduled refresh aligned to procurement cycles, and manual trigger available at any time.
For the first time, performance data on all 100+ suppliers was visible simultaneously — from board level to operations managers — without any manual consolidation. The reactive 2–3 day scramble per supplier was replaced by always-on visibility.
The data foundation on SharePoint Lists served the immediate need, but the better long-term architecture would have been Microsoft Dataverse. Dataverse can pull directly from enterprise sources like SAP and existing business warehouse databases — eliminating the manual data entry layer entirely and making the model scalable as the supplier base and data complexity grow. If rebuilding today, that would be the starting point.