|
No collaboration on processes with trading partners. Most leverage dictates mine or yours
Operations forged relationship
Limited scope of value add by the provider. Capacity and price are buying criteria.
Processes defined by simple discrete PO agreements on a take it or leave it basis.
“Take or Pay” attitude toward PO or forecast agreement
Use or Loose capacity agreement
No logistic sophistication in agreements, exworks terms. |
Processes defined and may be differentiated depending on the commodity or service.
Relationships go beyond operations but are not integrated between
organizational silos, i.e. finance and operations
Collaborative license is given on a barter basis, i.e.,I can reduce
your cost if I can aggregate and buy
Processes are “cascading” rather than collaborative and concurrent, ie we do our process, then you do your process.
|
Processes are integrated across silos, but not across partners.
Suppliers may have a greater value add or expert role, but contribute later in the lifecycle.
Definitive holistic agreements on process for tier 1 trading partners
|
Collaboration early and often
Collaborative process development – design new or pick the best process from either trading partner
Collaborative product design process
Collaborative forecasting and planning involves sales, marketing,
operations and partners
Benefits of collaboration are higher, relationships are longer and
switching costs are high
Multi-tiered inventory planning and optimization with trading partners
Understand relationships between various supply chains – view entire program or portfolio of products for each customer (rope of chains) |