Supply and Contractor Dependencies
Which suppliers or contractors could stop production?
Supplier on-time delivery: 90.4% against a ≥95% target (−4.6 pts); Plant 02 (85.0%) accounts for 2.8 of the 4.6 pts gap.
Root cause: Plant 02 received 147 of 173 order lines on time (85.0%). The main cause is Supplier S-07 (single source of RM-1, 62% on time, delivery slipped 6 days).
Supplier fill rate: 97.0% against a ≥98% target (−1.0 pts); Plant 01 (96.1%) accounts for 0.5 of the 1.0 pts gap.
Root cause: All three plants are below the ≥98% target; Plant 01 is lowest at 96.1%. There is no single supplier cause in the model.
Quality-rejection rate: 0.97% against a ≤1.50% target (−0.53 pts); all three plants meet target.
Supplier lead-time variance: 6.9% against a ≤5% target (+1.9 pts); Plant 02 (17.3%) moves it +3.2 pts, partly offset by Plant 03.
Root cause: Plant 02 lead times ran 17.3% over plan (772 vs 658 supplier-days), driven by Supplier S-07 (single source of RM-1, 62% on time, delivery slipped 6 days).
Critical supplier exposure: 2; unchanged since Apr.
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split. Plant link: RM-1 (Supplier S-07) feeds Plant 02; RM-3 (Supplier S-04).
Contractor slippage: 2.5 days against a ≤0.0 days target (+2.5 days).
Entity-level measure; the model holds no plant split. Plant link: Project 05 · Contractor C-3.
Root cause: Contractor C-3 is 3 days late on M3 civil works for Project 05 (debottleneck).
Material cover minus replenishment lead time · days (negative = stock-out risk)
AnswersWhich materials will run out before they can be replenished?