mcpField
M
mfg-supplier-scorecard

mfg-supplier-scorecard

github.com/asgard-ai-platformOther24369 installsUpdated 21w ago
Repository

About mfg-supplier-scorecard

A supplier-evaluation skill for procurement teams, using weighted Quality, Cost, Delivery, and Service criteria rather than price alone. It also covers supplier risk, grading, and improvement plans.

Key features

  1. 01QCDS evaluation dimensions
  2. 02Weighted KPI scoring
  3. 03A–D supplier grading
  4. 04Supplier risk assessment
  5. 05Improvement program guidance
  6. 06Scorecard output template

Use cases

  1. 01Comparing suppliers beyond unit price
  2. 02Classifying suppliers for sourcing decisions
  3. 03Creating improvement plans for C-grade suppliers

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills --skill mfg-supplier-scorecard

After installing, type/mfg-supplier-scorecardin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

examples/
sample_scenario.md
references/
supplier-audit.md
tco-calculation.md

Details

From the project README

Supplier Scorecard

Framework

IRON LAW: Evaluate on QCDS (Quality, Cost, Delivery, Service) — Not Just Price

The cheapest supplier who delivers defective parts late with no support
is the most expensive supplier. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) includes:
purchase price + incoming inspection + rework + downtime from defects +
expediting fees + management overhead.

NEVER select suppliers on price alone.
Four Evaluation Dimensions (QCDS)
DimensionWeight (typical)KPIs
Quality30-40%Defect rate (PPM), incoming inspection pass rate, certifications (ISO 9001), corrective action responsiveness
Cost20-30%Unit price, total cost of ownership, price stability, payment terms
Delivery20-30%On-time delivery rate, lead time, lead time variability, flexibility for rush orders
Service10-20%Responsiveness, communication quality, technical support, willingness to collaborate on improvements
Scoring Method
  1. Define KPIs per dimension (2-3 per dimension)
  2. Set weights (must sum to 100%)
  3. Score each KPI: 1-5 scale with clear definitions:
    • 5 = Excellent (top 10% of suppliers)
    • 4 = Good (meets all requirements consistently)
    • 3 = Acceptable (meets most requirements)
    • 2 = Below expectations (frequent issues)
    • 1 = Unacceptable (critical problems)
  4. Calculate weighted total
  5. Classify: A (>4.0), B (3.0-4.0), C (2.0-3.0), D (<2.0)
Supplier Classification & Actions
GradeScoreStrategy
A>4.0Preferred supplier, increase business, joint development
B3.0-4.0Approved supplier, maintain, targeted improvement
C2.0-3.0Conditional, improvement plan required within 90 days
D<2.0Phase out, begin alternative sourcing immediately
Risk Assessment
Risk FactorQuestionMitigation
Single sourceIs this supplier the only source for a critical component?Develop backup supplier
GeographicIs the supplier in a region prone to disruption?Dual-source across regions
FinancialIs the supplier financially stable?Monitor credit, require financial disclosures
CapacityCan the supplier scale with our growth?Capacity commitment agreements
IPDoes the supplier have access to our proprietary designs?NDA + IP clauses in contract
Supplier Development Program (SDP)

For C-grade suppliers worth keeping:

  1. Gap analysis: Where specifically are they falling short?
  2. Improvement plan: Specific, measurable, time-bound targets
  3. Support: Provide training, share best practices, co-invest if needed
  4. Review: Monthly progress checks, 90-day formal reassessment
  5. Decision: Improved to B+ → continue. Still C or worse → phase out.

Output Format

# Supplier Scorecard: {Supplier Name}

## Overall Score: {X.X} / 5.0 — Grade: {A/B/C/D}

## Detailed Scores
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|---------|
| Quality | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Cost | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Delivery | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Service | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| **Total** | **100%** | — | **{X.XX}** |

## KPI Details
| KPI | Target | Actual | Score |
|-----|--------|--------|-------|
| Defect rate | <500 PPM | {X} PPM | {1-5} |
| On-time delivery | >95% | {%} | {1-5} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Level | Mitigation |
|------|-------|-----------|
| {risk} | H/M/L | {action} |

## Action Plan
{Based on grade: preferred/maintain/improve/phase out}

Gotchas

  • Weighting should reflect YOUR priorities: A medical device company should weight Quality at 50%+. A commodity buyer might weight Cost at 40%. Don't use generic weights.
  • Score inflation: Purchasing teams may inflate scores to avoid difficult conversations with suppliers. Require data-backed evidence for each score.
  • Review frequency: A-grade quarterly, B/C-grade monthly, D-grade weekly until resolved.
  • Supplier relationship matters: Scorecards are tools for improvement, not punishment. Share results with suppliers transparently — the best suppliers want feedback.
  • TCO includes hidden costs: Don't forget: incoming inspection labor, warehouse space for safety stock (to cover unreliable delivery), engineering time for quality issues, customs/logistics for overseas suppliers.

References

  • For TCO calculation methodology, see references/tco-calculation.md
  • For supplier audit checklists, see references/supplier-audit.md

Comments

Markdown supported