Published on August 20, 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>
A supplier can receive top marks today \u2013 and still be the wrong partner tomorrow. This is because traditional supplier evaluations have a systematic weakness: they primarily look in the rearview mirror.<\/p>\n
Quality, delivery reliability, costs, complaints \u2013 all these key performance indicators show how well a supplier has met requirements so far. That's important. But it doesn't answer the question that is at least as crucial for the future:<\/p>\n
What skills can this supplier bring to the table for us tomorrow?<\/b><\/p>\n
This is precisely where strategic supplier management begins for me.<\/p>\n
Years ago, I dealt intensively with these questions in a project for Siemens.<\/p>\n
In a technology-driven environment, it wasn't just about identifying reliable suppliers. We needed to know which partners could contribute new technologies, development expertise, and high-performance supply chains in the future.<\/p>\n
So we broadened our perspective.<\/p>\n
In addition to current performance, we also analyzed and audited the potential of the suppliers.<\/b><\/p>\n
That fundamentally changed the discussion.<\/p>\n
A supplier with excellent current key performance indicators was not automatically the most strategically important partner. And a supplier who hadn't yet fully convinced us in the current evaluation could suddenly become highly interesting if their technological capabilities aligned well with our future development.<\/p>\n
This approach later led to the development of our Supplier & Partner Management Program at Emarticon.<\/p>\n
The crucial insight gained from this experience still stays with me today:<\/p>\n
Performance shows what a supplier delivers today. Potential shows what can be achieved with them tomorrow.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> Those who consider the two axes of performance and potential separately get a much more differentiated picture of their supplier portfolio.<\/p>\n Essentially, four groups emerge:<\/p>\n I consider the third group particularly important. Because that's precisely where it becomes clear whether supplier development is being approached strategically \u2013 or merely as a repair program.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> In many companies, supplier development begins where a supplier causes problems. But for me, a different question is more strategically interesting:<\/p>\n What skills do we want to develop together with a supplier because they will be crucial for our company in the future?<\/b><\/p>\n Supplier development then takes on a completely different meaning. It no longer serves merely to eliminate existing shortcomings. It becomes an investment in future capabilities.<\/p>\n However, this also means that not every supplier should be developed. It is not enough to simply classify a supplier as "innovative".<\/p>\n A company needs to know very specifically what it is looking for:<\/p>\n Even the most innovative supplier is of little strategic relevance if their capabilities play no role in the future of the company itself.<\/p>\n Therefore, for me, good supplier management doesn't begin with the supplier. It begins with your own strategy.<\/b><\/p>\n Anyone who wants to assess supplier potential needs to know where their own company should be headed. This directly links supplier management with corporate, technology, and product group strategy.<\/p>\n And it changes the role of purchasing.<\/b><\/p>\n Purchasing then no longer just manages existing supplier relationships. It helps to decide which skills and technologies the company needs.<\/p>\n This goes far beyond a good supplier scorecard.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> I wouldn't replace traditional supplier evaluations, but I would consistently add a second perspective to them:<\/p>\n Not just: How well does this supplier meet our requirements today?<\/p>\n Rather:<\/p>\n Because anyone who evaluates their suppliers solely based on their past performance is making future decisions with data from the past.<\/b><\/p>\n Or to put it even more bluntly: Those who only look at suppliers in the rearview mirror risk missing out on the future with yesterday's best partners.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div> \ud83d\udc49<\/b> <\/b>More on this topic:Two axes change the perspective<\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\nThese are the strategic partners that should be retained and specifically developed further.<\/li>\n
\nValuable and reliable suppliers \u2013 but not necessarily the partners for the next technological or strategic development stage.<\/li>\n
\nFor me, this is the most interesting group. Here, a company has to decide whether targeted development is worthwhile.<\/li>\n
\nHere, the strategic perspective is usually clear.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>![\"Wer](\"https:\/\/emarticon.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/8-Impuls-Foto.png\")
<\/span>Supplier development is an investment decision<\/h3><\/div>
\nImprove quality. Increase delivery reliability. Stabilize processes.
\nThis may be necessary.<\/p>\n
\nManagement time, technical know-how, and resources are limited. They should be deployed where future potential and strategic relevance converge.<\/p>\n\n
What companies can learn from this<\/h3><\/div>
\n
\nHere's how we at Emarticon approach supplier management:
\n\u2192 Strategic supplier management:<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>