Supplier scorecard: an example with delivery and quality
A supplier scores 94 out of 100 while missing a required quality level. Build a scorecard that keeps the evidence and the decision visible beside the total.
The quarterly supplier score is 94 out of 100. It passes the team's overall target of 90. Quality still has 120 rejected pieces to deal with.
Both statements can be correct. The score averages several things, and some excellent results can compensate for a result the company cannot accept.
A supplier scorecard brings agreed performance measures together for a review and a decision. It should show the evidence behind each measure, the requirements that apply and what happens when they are missed. The overall number is only one part of it.
CIPS's supplier-performance guidance stresses agreed targets, objective information and involvement from both sides. Start there before choosing weights.
Choose supplier evaluation criteria for the actual requirement
A new supplier assessment asks whether the business can meet the requirement. A recurring scorecard asks what happened after the business was awarded. Capability, capacity and commercial conditions matter to both, but the evidence differs.
Our fictional manufacturer uses five criteria for one component supplier: delivery, quality, response, price compliance and completion of agreed continuity actions. These are choices for this purchase, not a standard set of five for every supplier.
The review covers one quarter. Keep the delivery promises and acceptance requirements fixed for that period, or show the effect of any agreed change separately.
Supplier performance scorecard: one quarter, five measures
Here is the underlying record. Higher is better for all five percentages in this example.
| Measure | Evidence and calculation | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 46 of 50 orders due were received in full and accepted within the original agreed window | 92% | 35% |
| Quality | 9,880 of 10,000 received pieces passed the agreed acceptance check | 98.8% | 30% |
| Response | 9 of 10 requests received a substantive response within the agreed two working days | 90% | 15% |
| Price compliance | 18 of 20 checked invoice lines matched the agreed price | 90% | 10% |
| Continuity actions | 5 of 5 actions due in the period were completed with the required evidence | 100% | 10% |
These denominators differ on purpose: orders, pieces, requests, invoice lines and actions. A reader should be able to find each population in the records. If no requests occurred, response would be not applicable and would need an agreed scoring treatment, rather than an automatic 100%.
For OTIF, this example counts complete accepted orders against their original window. It does not count only the orders that eventually arrived, or score a revised date without retaining the original promise.
Weighted total
0.35 × 92 + 0.30 × 98.8 + 0.15 × 90 + 0.10 × 90 + 0.10 × 100
Total = 94.34 out of 100
The calculation is correct. Whether that total permits continued supply is another question.
A required condition should not disappear in the average
Suppose the agreed quality condition is at least 99.5% accepted pieces, with a review and containment response below it. At 98.8%, the supplier misses that condition even though its overall score passes 90.
Keep the failed condition beside the total, with the affected material, containment decision and responsible people. The response depends on the component and agreement; this example does not prescribe an automatic ban or an automatic concession.
Changing the quality weight can change the total without changing a single rejected piece. That is why the requirement needs its own treatment.
The same caution applies to the 100% continuity-action result. Five completed actions show that five commitments were completed. They do not establish that the supplier cannot be disrupted. The supply-chain risk example checks what a backup actually depends on.
Take the failed orders into the supplier review
A late delivery might follow a supplier production problem, a buyer's late release or a requirement changed after the commitment. Keep the service result visible, then investigate the cause with both teams.
Agree how legitimate revisions and customer-caused holds are recorded. Do not quietly remove difficult orders or automatically blame every courier invoice on the supplier.
Vrolen's OTIF guide follows the receipt evidence in more detail. It uses a separate example; its results are not this quarter's supplier data.
Cost needs a similar check. Price compliance records whether the invoice matches the agreement. It does not establish the full cost of using that supplier. The procurement savings example puts extra freight and other costs beside the quoted saving.
Give each measure a possible action
For this review, Quality needs to agree how the rejected pieces are contained and why they failed. Planning and the supplier need to investigate the four unsuccessful deliveries. Purchasing needs to resolve the two price discrepancies.
Record the action, owner, due date and evidence required for closure. Review repeat failures as well as completion of the actions. An action marked closed while the same defect returns deserves another look.
Keep the scorecard short. If a measure has no clear definition, credible record or possible decision, repair it or remove it. The review should leave the supplier and the company knowing what they need to do before the next quarter's score arrives.
Sources and example notes
- CIPS: Managing supplier performance. Agreed objectives, measures, scorecards and joint review of performance evidence.
The supplier, quarter, records, targets and weights are fictional. Delivery uses orders due in the quarter; quality uses pieces received in the quarter. They describe different populations. The score combines five percentage measures under an illustrative rule, not a validated supplier-selection model.