Procurement Performance Review

About this template

Fourteen slides for an annual purchasing review

Fourteen slides for reporting a year of purchasing to management: what was bought, at what price, whether it arrived, and who the suppliers are. Four sections each get a divider and a body slide (3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10), then a comparison, key metrics, a trend chart and the closing. The agenda on slide 2 carries a 07 / 07 counter, so adding or removing a line means editing that counter as well as the list.

The four body slides

• Slide 4, “Procurement overview”, under “What we bought this year, and for how much.”: total orders KRW 41.2bn, 2,840 purchase orders, raw materials 58% of orders.
• Slide 6, “Prices and savings”: average price down 3.4% year on year, competitive bidding at 71%, 12 sole-source memos revised.
• Slide 8, “Delivery and quality”: on-time delivery 94.2%, 37 incoming-inspection failures, 4 late-delivery claims.
• Slide 10, “Supplier base”: 186 registered suppliers, 42 rated A in the review, 19 added and 7 removed.

Slides 6 and 8 belong together in the discussion even though they are separate screens. A 3.4% price reduction alongside 37 inspection failures is a different story from the same reduction with a clean quality record, and the audience will connect them whether or not you do.

The sourcing comparison

Slide 11 is labeled A / B and sets “Sole sourcing” against “Competitive bidding”: no record behind the price, 12 justification memos returned and faster to place the order, against quotes from three or more firms, average price down 3.4% and two extra weeks to prepare. The slide is honest in both directions, which is what makes it usable – sole sourcing is faster and that is why people reach for it. Keep the speed line in the left column rather than deleting it, and let the 12 returned memos carry the argument instead.

Tiles and quarterly bars

Slide 12 carries KRW 41.2bn annual order value, 94.2% on-time delivery, 71% competitive bid share and 186 registered suppliers. All four are repeated on body slides, so an edit has to be made in two places. Slide 13 runs Q1 88, Q2 104, Q3 96, Q4 124 under a “Unit: index” caption; the four quarters add to 412, which lines up with KRW 41.2bn if the unit is KRW 100m. Say that in the caption rather than leaving the index label, and if the fourth-quarter spike is a year-end catch-up rather than real demand, note it on the slide – it is the first thing a reviewer will ask about.

Where the review gets challenged

• Reporting a price reduction without saying what the mix was. If cheaper items made up more of the basket, the average moves without anyone negotiating anything.
• Leaving the sole-source share out. The competitive bid figure implies it, so state the other 29% directly.
• Presenting supplier counts without the concentration behind them. 186 registered suppliers means little if a handful carry most of the spend.
• Closing on “Buying cheap is not the whole job” without evidence. The quality and delivery numbers on slide 8 are that evidence – refer back to them.