Evaluate and tier suppliers using a weighted scorecard per SCOR DS Supplier Management practices. Score Quality, Delivery, Cost, Responsiveness, and Sustainability. Classify suppliers as Strategic, Preferred, Approved, or Conditional. Use during vendor reviews or procurement decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
| Criterion | Weight | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | 30% | Defect rate, inspection pass rate, returns |
| Delivery | 25% | On-time delivery %, lead time variance |
| Cost | 20% | Price competitiveness, total cost of ownership |
| Responsiveness | 15% | Communication speed, issue resolution time |
| Sustainability | 10% | ESG compliance, certifications, carbon footprint |
Adjust weights based on industry and strategic priorities.
| Score | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent | Exceeds expectations consistently |
| 4 | Good | Meets expectations with occasional excellence |
| 3 | Acceptable | Meets minimum standards |
| 2 | Below Average | Frequent issues, requires monitoring |
| 1 | Unacceptable | Consistent failures, action required |
Weighted Score = Σ (Score × Weight)
| Weighted Score | Tier | Relationship Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5–5.0 | Strategic | Long-term partnership, innovation collaboration |
| 3.5–4.4 | Preferred | Stable relationship, volume commitment |
| 2.5–3.4 | Approved | Transactional, competitive bidding |
| < 2.5 | Conditional | Improvement plan required, phase-out risk |
For Conditional and low-Approved suppliers:
| Input | Required | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier name and category | Yes | Text |
| Performance data | Yes | Metrics per criterion |
| Contract/spend data | Recommended | Annual spend, contract terms |
| Previous evaluation | Recommended | Prior scorecard if available |
## Supplier Evaluation — [Supplier Name] — [Period]
### Scorecard
| Criterion | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Quality | 30% | 4 | 1.20 |
| Delivery | 25% | 3 | 0.75 |
| Cost | 20% | 4 | 0.80 |
| Responsiveness | 15% | 5 | 0.75 |
| Sustainability | 10% | 3 | 0.30 |
| **Total** | **100%** | | **3.80** |
### Tier: PREFERRED (3.80 / 5.0)
### Improvement Areas
1. Delivery: OTD dropped to 88% (target: 95%) — root cause: warehouse capacity
2. Sustainability: No ISO 14001 certification yet — expected Q3
### Action Plan
| Action | Owner | Deadline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Improve OTD to 95% | Supplier ops team | 90 days |
| Submit ISO 14001 timeline | Supplier quality | 60 days |
| Re-evaluate | Procurement | Q3 |
Evaluate our packaging supplier FastPack Ltd for Q1.
Quality: 96% pass rate (4/5), Delivery: 88% OTD (3/5), Cost: competitive (4/5),
Responsiveness: excellent (5/5), Sustainability: no ISO 14001 (3/5).
Generate the scorecard and improvement plan.
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Are formulas, aggregations, and statistical methods applied correctly? |
| Completeness | Does the analysis cover all requested metrics and time ranges? |
| Context-fit | Are the chosen metrics relevant to the business question being answered? |
| Consequence | If this data were used for a decision today, what blind spots remain? |
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Design rigorous A/B test plans with hypothesis, sample size calculation, Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE), randomization strategy, and decision rules. Includes guardrail metrics and rollout playbook. Use when planning product experiments, conversion optimization, or data-driven feature decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review REST and GraphQL API designs for consistency, usability, and best practices. Covers naming conventions, versioning strategy, error format, pagination, authentication patterns, and breaking change detection. Use when reviewing API specs, designing new APIs, or auditing existing endpoints.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following the Michael Nygard format. Captures context, options considered, decision rationale, and consequences. Use when making technology choices, framework selections, or any architectural decision that future developers need to understand.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Assess organizational readiness for financial audits (internal or external). Map assertions to account balances, check evidence completeness, score readiness using a Red/Amber/Green framework, and generate a remediation timeline. Aligned with SOX, IFRS, and GAAP audit standards. Use before scheduled audits or when preparing for first-time compliance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Design safe recurring Codex automations with clear prompts, outputs, schedules, and gating rules.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Refine Product Backlog Items to meet INVEST criteria. Write User Stories with Acceptance Criteria in Given/When/Then format, estimate with Story Points, and flag dependencies. Use before sprint planning when backlog items need grooming. Do not use to prioritize the backlog — that is the Product Owner's decision.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.