Meetings: How to Plan and Run Meetings - miyagi-marugoto2012.info
Why should customers and suppliers review service performance after the fact? . And it's expected to diverge off the agenda and touch on tangential topics. Meeting times tend to shorten the more experienced both customer and service management, supplier management, supplier relationship. plan - use the agenda as a planning tool; circulate the meeting agenda in advance . suppliers helps build relationships and strengthen the chain of supply, and. Effective supplier relationship management requires segmentation of suppliers Segmentation guidelines. Kick-off meeting agenda. Supplier profile template.
For example, are they planning to double sales? Are they introducing a new product line? What will the value of accomplishing those goals be? Are these short or long-term plans? What challenges do you anticipate along the way? This is the other side of the goals. What will it cost to achieve them in terms of time, money or personnel?
Probe using open questions to understand their direction. This is when you get to talk. Avoid telling them what they should do and suggest to them what they could do. Refer to a third party to explain what other companies are doing and see if they want a similar solution.
Highlight any action needing to be taken to make sure everyone agrees on them and their timelines. Finally, book your next account review meeting. Send a follow-up email that summarizes next steps and any commitments made by either of you along with the timelines.
In Supplier Meetings, Who is Managing Whom? - Spend Matters
Then follow through as you said you would. Many organizations have been successful at establishing the new supply environments and obtaining savings through negotiation of new contracts. However, few organizations are adept at or prepared for managing the new set of supplier relationships they have created. Supplier Relationship Management Challenges: Many companies that have transformed their supplier environment in recent years advanced procurement techniques experience a common set of pain-points and challenges: Increasing reliance on suppliers and exposure to supplier risks: While risk management has received significant boardroom attention, in most organizations, supplier risk remains largely unmanaged while reliance on suppliers and exposure to supplier risk continues to increase dramatically.
- How to Keep Your Clients: Account Review Meetings
- Vendor Management Team Meeting Agenda Template
- Supplier relationship management
Increased focus on strategic sourcing, outsourcing, and low-cost country sourcing has transferred to suppliers many activities that were previously performed in-house and has simultaneously driven consolidation in the supply base. The result has been dramatically increased reliance on key suppliers, often accompanied by development of more complex supplier interactions with growing numbers of touch-points and dependencies. Many companies do not have a comprehensive view of the risks associated with their supply base, nor do they have a well-thought-out, repeatable approach to managing these risks.
Furthermore, it is not clear who in the organization has the responsibility to evaluate and manage supplier risks, what risk conditions should trigger actions or, even what those actions should be. Ill-defined post-contract supplier management processes and roles: Processes and roles post-transaction are ill-defined, often inhibiting further performance improvements, limiting value from supplier relationships, and making performance gains difficult to sustain.
In many large and even mid-sized companies, the sourcing discipline is well established and repeatable enabling companies to lock in savings in category after category. However, while typical sourcing methodologies provide guidance leading up to execution of a supplier contract, once a contract is signed and the relationship moves into ramp-up and operation phases, there is remarkably little clarity and definition around what management processes must be in place, who within the company is and, equally importantly, is not responsible, how executives should be involved, how management activities can be conducted in an efficient manner, and how the relationship can be managed.
In such environments, supplier relationship activities are little more than a series of reactive firefighting exercises with duplicated effort across the organization, with little management transparency of what actions have been taken or will be needed.
In Supplier Meetings, Who is Managing Whom?
The result is relationships that are inefficient and fail to harness the full capabilities of the supplier translating into increased lifetime costs. Suppliers are not accountable for performance — the organization is left holding the bag: While hundreds or even thousands of supplier metrics are tracked and reported, performance problems can persist and organizations often do not recoup resulting costs. While contracting with a supplier after a major sourcing effort often locks in significant savings, it also locks in a number of headaches and challenges.
This results in contracts that do not hold suppliers accountable, that do not motivate suppliers to improve, and that omit actionable steps the organization can take to improve supplier performance.
As a result, many organizations find themselves with contractual Service Level Agreements SLAs that are not aligned with business value drivers, few, if any individuals that understand what suppliers are actually accountable for, and a lack of clarity in what actions should be taken when issues occur. The result is significantly diminished value from the supplier relationships, lost opportunity in recouping costs from ill-performing suppliers, and frustrated employees who know that suppliers are underperforming, but can not correct the problem.
Strategic suppliers are not truly strategic: Most organizations can not precisely identify which suppliers are truly strategic or even how such strategic supplier relationships should be managed, leading to an inability to effectively focus resources or realize strategic value from the supply base. When managed effectively, strategic relationships can deliver impressive returns and competitive advantage to both companies and their suppliers.
Through strategic relationships, companies and their suppliers can drive lower total lifetime costs while allowing suppliers to profit, can reduce risk for both parties, can help create advanced joint capabilities not available to other competitors, and can provide strategic options for additional value for both parties.
While most organizations are proud to declare that they view some suppliers as strategic, few organizations can describe the implications of making a supplier strategic.
Many organizations have not formally spelled out a set of expectations for what makes suppliers strategic, how such suppliers will be managed differently, and what suppliers must deliver in return to maintain their strategic status. Furthermore, in many organizations, asking 10 individuals to name the strategic suppliers will yield 10 different answers.
As a result, many organizations manage strategic and non-strategic suppliers in an undifferentiated fashion, resulting in too much time wasted on non-strategic suppliers while little strategic value is derived from strategic relationships. Companies should manage suppliers vs. In the absence of a clear set of supplier management processes and roles in the organization, suppliers are often able to set the agenda and canvass the organization to build business.
Major supplier relationships tend to have multiple facets and touch points — operational, contractual, financial, executive-to-executive, etc. While the organization can gain value from consolidating business with key suppliers and forming strategic, multi-faceted relationships, such relationships should be defined in a structured transparent manner rather than through a free-for-all sales frenzy, that can distract many individuals across the organization, consume a lot of time, and lead to poor procurement choices.
Supplier Relationship Management - eSourcingWiki
While initial aggressive sourcing in a category has for many companies yielded dramatic savings and other benefits, sustaining those benefits and attaining further reductions can be difficult without effective SRM. However, re-sourcing categories where significant savings have already extracted often yields disappointing returns and often has a very poor ROI. This is because once spend is consolidated, specs rationalized, excess supplier profit margins removed, and work offshored where applicablesourcing offers little on-going opportunity.
In order to unlock the next layer of savings, companies are finding that they must address the structural and process inefficiencies in supplier relationships and collaborate with suppliers to improve joint capabilities. Employees are not equipped with supplier management skills and knowledge: Procurement brings to bear resources with transactional or sourcing skill sets, operations brings to bear resources with functional and people management skills — none are a good fit for day-to-day supplier management.
In most organizations, the personnel responsible for on-going supplier management are the same individuals who drove strategic sourcing and those who managed internal functional departments before they were outsourced. In both cases, such individuals often lack both the knowledge and the skills required to manage supplier relationships effectively.
Procurement personnel are trained in sourcing methodologies, negotiation, and other procurement skills.
Operational personnel have a deep functional understanding and can be excellent people managers; however, they often lack the understanding of procurement best practices. The result is that the best skills and knowledge are not brought to bear in managing supplier relationships. The result is that supplier accountability is diminished and internal costs can rise. Formal supplier development programs are lacking or ineffective: However, most companies lack effective programs for supplier development.
Everybody has become a vendor manager: Inefficiency introduced as too many employees spend time on unnecessary or redundant interactions with suppliers. As companies outsource more activities to suppliers, they often find that not all the internal work goes away — an alarming number of employees across the organization end up spending time and effort managing and interacting with the supplier.
This overhead is exacerbated by the duplication of supplier management effort that typically occurs across different corporate functions, business divisions, and geographies.
Because internal roles and responsibilities are not clear, because many aspects of the relationship are ill-defined, because vendor management is seen as a viable job in departments where headcount reductions routinely occur, and because suppliers make every attempt to spread their relationship footprint, too many employees become involved in performing supplier management tasks that are often redundant, inefficient, unnecessary, or even competing.
In our experience this can translate into dozens or even hundreds of employees involved with tracking supplier activities, dealing with issues, interacting with supplier personnel, etc. Procurement, what have you done for me lately?: While the procurement function has played a leadership role in sourcing and outsourcing activities, as sourcing matures in an organization, the objectives and value proposition of the procurement function need to evolve.
In many organizations, the procurement function has played a leading role in deploying strategic sourcing, outsourcing, and low cost country sourcing. However, as sourcing has become mature in many organizations, as the key categories have already been sourced, as sourcing practices have been institutionalized, and as many functions and business groups have become more or less self sufficient when it comes to further sourcing, procurement organizations are finding that they must develop a new value proposition.
One path is for procurement organizations to champion effective SRM become centers of excellence, not just of strategic sourcing, but of on-going SRM across the entire lifecycle of supplier relationships. System support for end-to-end supplier management is not effective: Many organizations lack the systems capabilities needed to support day-to-day supplier management across the supplier life-cycle.
Meetings - how to plan and run meetings
The result is excessive manual effort, lack of a single view of supplier impact on the organization, and reduced ability to improve supplier performance. While many large organizations have deployed systems for e-procurement and ERP systems to manage purchasing transactions and accounts payable APsupplier data remains fragmented between corporate systems and desktop hard drives and system support for SRM across the entire relationship life-cycle is often minimal.
Data pertaining to supplier relationship governance, supplier development activities, etc. Forming a single picture of a supplier relationship is not easy. In addition, very few companies have systems that support day-to-day SRM activities such as relationship governance, SLA management, joint process improvement, and supplier stratification. Where such system capabilities exist, they are fragmented leading to inefficient processes.