Reports and quality
When a supplier keeps failing
From an isolated incident to a decision: when there is a pattern and what to do with it.
One failure is a failure. Three from the same supplier in six months are not: they are a pattern, and the difference between seeing it and not is having the history together rather than spread across three people's memories.
How a pattern shows
| Signal | What it usually means |
|---|---|
| Always late with the same item | They do not have it, and get it when pushed |
| Fails when their contact person changes | The problem is their organisation, not their willingness |
| Delivers expired documentation | They do not check it before sending |
| Fails only on one site or with one client | It is a local problem, not the supplier's |
Important
The last row is the most overlooked. Before concluding a supplier is bad, check whether they fail with everyone or only in one place: if it is one, the problem may be how they are being asked from there.
What to do with the pattern
- 1
Show it to them
With specific dates, not "you are always late". Most correct course once they see the list.
- 2
Adjust what you ask for
If the same document always fails, check whether you are asking for it well.
- 3
Decide, and write it down
Continue, continue with conditions, or stop. All three are valid; not deciding is not.
Watch out
Be careful scoring suppliers with a number and no context. A supplier with three incidents in three hundred deliveries is not worse than one with one in four, and a badly built score ends up punishing whoever does most work for you.
Worth knowing
When the decision is to stop working with someone, the dated history is what sustains it if that company objects. Without it, it is your impression against theirs.
›Should I show the supplier the history?
It is usually the most effective step: most do not know there is a pattern.
›How many incidents make a pattern?
It depends on volume. What matters is the proportion, not the count.
›What if they are indispensable?
Then the decision is to continue with conditions, and those are worth writing down.
A real case
The situation
A company is about to drop a supplier over repeated incidents.
What you do
- Checks the history: all of them come from one site
- Reviews how requests are made from there
What you get
The problem was that site's process, and the supplier stops failing without changing supplier.
The situation
A supplier fails for the third time and the conversation happens without data.
What you do
- Checks their incident history before meeting
- Brings the dates and the impact of each
- Agrees a plan with a review date
What you get
The conversation stops being an impression and the supplier knows what is measured.
The situation
Suppliers are switched without knowing whether the new one will be better.
What you do
- Compares both histories
What you get
The decision is taken with data.
The situation
Each department has its own view of how that supplier is doing.
What you do
- Checks the same source for all
What you get
The company speaks with one voice.
The situation
A plan is agreed and nobody reviews it.
What you do
- Sets the review date when agreeing it
What you get
The plan is met, or you know it is not.
The situation
The supplier improves and nobody acknowledges it.
What you do
- Checks the period's trend
What you get
The relationship matches what is happening now.
This article answers
- supplier repeatedly failing
- supplier evaluation incidents
- when to stop working with a supplier
- supplier incident history