CORE Exam Dumps - Supply Management Core Exam

Company Situation: TUV Inc. is aiming to rebuild its customer base and return to profitability.

Negotiations with Key Supplier: Achieving target costs and pricing is critical for the turnaround.

Challenging Constraint: The troubled financial history of TUV poses the most significant challenge in negotiations. Suppliers may be hesitant to offer favorable terms to a financially unstable company, affecting credit terms, pricing, and trust.

Financial Stability: Ensuring TUV's financial stability is crucial for gaining supplier confidence and securing advantageous terms.

References

ISM. (n.d.). Negotiating with Suppliers: Addressing Financial Constraints.

CIPS. (n.d.). Overcoming Financial Challenges in Supplier Negotiations.

In negotiation sessions, it is crucial to address any concerns about the supplier's capacity before proceeding. By requesting a caucus, the lead negotiator can discuss their concerns privately with the team. This ensures that all team members can share their perspectives and provide input, leading to a well-informed decision on whether and how to proceed with the negotiation.

References

Negotiation theory and techniques, particularly in supplier negotiations.

Conflict resolution and team coordination practices in supply chain negotiations.

Purpose of Business Review: Regular reviews are meant to foster collaboration, ensure alignment on goals, and address any issues proactively.

Relationship Building: Strengthening the business relationship helps in fostering trust and long-term cooperation.

Strategic Collaboration: By promoting collaboration, both parties can work together more effectively, potentially leading to innovation and continuous improvement.

References

Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2016). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage Learning.

Burt, D. N., Petcavage, S. D., & Pinkerton, R. L. (2010). Supply Management. McGraw-Hill Education.

In this situation, the best tactic is to continue negotiations while keeping an eye on the lawsuit's progress. This approach allows the buying firm to proceed with securing the critical part needed for operations without significant delays. Postponing negotiations (A) could lead to operational disruptions, while requesting more favorable payment terms (B) might not address the underlying risk associated with the lawsuit. Purchasing an all-risk insurance policy (D) could be a complementary action but does not directly resolve the immediate need to negotiate terms with the supplier. References: Concepts of risk management and supplier relationship management in supply chain and procurement textbooks.

Given Data:

Unit price: $0.40

Annual usage: 80,000 units

Carrying cost: 25%

Minimum order quantity: 20,000 units

Total Purchase Cost:

Unit price multiplied by annual usage: $0.40 * 80,000 = $32,000

Additional Costs:

As the item price is fixed and includes delivery (DDP Incoterms® 2020), there are no additional duties or transportation costs.

Carrying Cost Calculation:

For the minimum order quantity, the carrying cost is not a factor because the question specifies a fixed price per unit delivered.

Conclusion: The total cost of purchasing 80,000 units per year at $0.40 each is $32,000.

References

Incoterms® 2020 by International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation by Sunil Chopra.

The Handbook of Logistics and Distribution Management by Alan Rushton, Phil Croucher, and Peter Baker.

The BEST course of action for EFG, Inc. to take in assessing the financial stability of potential suppliers for operational software is A. Obtain Dun & Bradstreet reports for the potential suppliers and review them for financial vulnerabilities. Dun & Bradstreet reports provide comprehensive insights into a company’s financial health, including credit scores, financial stability, and potential risks1. This information is crucial for making informed decisions during the supplier selection process.

The next step in the process is to conduct a phase-out meeting with all stakeholders to finalize the decision on which supplier will be awarded the business. This meeting allows the project team to review the proposals, discuss any final concerns, and make a collaborative decision based on the success criteria established at the initial project meeting. It ensures that all aspects, including performance, cost savings, and any potential risks, are considered before awarding the contract to the selected supplier. References:

Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling by Harold Kerzner.

Strategic Supply Management: Principles, Theories and Practice by Paul Cousins, Richard Lamming, Benn Lawson, and Brian Squire.

Issue at Hand: Supplier X will no longer support the current software version that EFG is satisfied with.

Prohibitive Upgrade Costs: EFG cannot afford the costs of upgrading to the newer software version at this time.

Incentivizing Support: Identifying additional business opportunities for Supplier X within EFG can serve as an incentive for Supplier X to continue supporting the current software version.

Strengthening Relationship: This approach leverages the existing relationship and provides Supplier X with potential for more business, making it a mutually beneficial solution.

References

ISM. (n.d.). Supplier Relationship Management: Strategies and Best Practices.

CIPS. (n.d.). Building and Managing Supplier Relationships.