Is the supplier weak, or is the load wrong?
Capability, real capacity, bottlenecks, switching time and recovery options before calling for replacement.
00 · Quick scan
Four places I would challenge before adding complexity.
Are we buying cost and variation into the product?
Material, tolerance, commonality, process choice and supplier input before the design closes the options.
Do the terms fit volatile demand?
Pricing structure, allocation, capacity commitments, lead time, flexibility and escalation behind the route we choose.
Can the organisation actually carry the choice?
Engineering, Quality, Planning, Production, data and documentation all have to survive the handoff.
DevelopDual-source selectivelySimplifySplit allocationLocalise where it paysPay for reliability when it earns it
01 · Decision order
The supplier is only one place to challenge.
A capacity issue, a design issue, a poor commercial setup and a weak supplier can all show up as the same problem in Production. I would not use the same answer for all four.
Before the RFQ grows
Fix the cause, not the symptom.
Start with what is actually driving the risk: capability, capacity, lead time, design variation, planning, data or commercial terms. A supplier problem and an overloaded good supplier are not the same thing.
Working rule: do not add a supplier because the symptom is visible. Add one because the risk case earns it.
While the design is still open
Keep the options that change the result.
Can Engineering simplify or reuse? Can the incumbent change the process? Can a supplier suggest a better material or manufacturing route? Can demand be structured differently? Early sourcing matters because those options still exist.
The value is not “more options.” It is knowing which options are worth keeping.
After the route is chosen
The commercial setup should support the decision.
Price matters, but so do allocation, capacity commitments, lead time, flexibility, call-off logic and escalation. I want the agreement to support the way the business actually needs to buy.
A cheap unit price does not repair a route that cannot absorb the demand.
Before calling it done
A sourcing decision has to survive the handoff.
Engineering approval, Quality evidence, material readiness, planning parameters, documentation and Production reality all matter. My broader background is useful here because I have worked on both sides of that handoff.
The PO is not the finish line.
02 · Where I would push hardest
Three decisions matter more than another RFQ.
This is the part I kept thinking about after the interview. Not another summary of what we discussed, but where I think good sourcing can change the outcome earlier.
Dual-source only where it changes the risk.
A second source can reduce exposure. It also creates qualification work, volume dilution and another relationship to manage. I would use it where the reduction in risk is worth the extra complexity.
Negotiate the cost before it becomes a quote.
Material, tolerances, commonality, process and volume assumptions can lock cost and lead time into the product before Sourcing starts negotiating. The earlier Sourcing and suppliers can challenge that, the bigger the room to move.
Make each DTO project leave the supply base stronger.
Supplier capability, pricing logic, capacity agreements, documentation and lessons should be reusable where possible. Growth is easier when the next project does not start from zero.
03 · Proof
A bottleneck is a fact. Replacing the supplier is a choice.
This is the clearest supplier example from my own work because it forced a real choice between capacity, continuity and keeping a useful supplier relationship.
Supplier development + recoveryA.K.S. Finmekanik
A capable supplier reached its limit after we increased the business.
I had brought the supplier in and increased the volume after good performance. When the additional demand created a bottleneck, I protected urgent Production needs, moved part of the work, stopped adding commitments they could not support, and kept the supplier because the capability still had value.
QualifyCapability proved
GrowPerformance supports more volume
ConstraintCapacity limit appears
ProtectUrgent demand moved / commitments controlled
Keep optionsUseful capability retained
What mattered was separating the supplier's capability from the capacity problem. The business still needed protection, but “replace the supplier” was not automatically the smartest answer.
Pressure without making the relationship disposable.
RFQs, supplier comparison and selection, negotiation, pricing and supply conditions, plus framework / call-off-type purchasing. Larger or longer-term commitments were escalated with the facts and my recommendation.
Clear pressure. Clear authority. Relationship still usable.
I know what happens after the supplier decision.
Drawings, BOMs, routings, revisions, FAI-type documentation, MRP, material readiness and master data. Engineering and Quality kept their technical authority. I kept the sourcing and execution consequences visible.
Sourcing that still works after the handoff.
04 · First output
I would not start with a savings target.
The first thing I would want is a simple picture of where the portfolio is exposed and where Sourcing can actually move the result. Then I would choose the few priorities worth acting on.
Portfolio exposure mapQuestions first · decisions second
What can actually stop the business?
Customer / Production consequence, technical uniqueness and how much time exists before the issue becomes urgent.
How fast can another route become real?
Qualification, tooling, samples, approval, documentation and first reliable supply.
Where is the actual bottleneck?
Process, equipment, subcontracting, labour, material or simply poor visibility of demand.
How much risk is locked into the specification?
Material, tolerance, unique parts, commonality and supplier-specific process choices.
Do the terms support the demand?
Pricing structure, allocation, call-off logic, capacity commitment, lead time and escalation.
Can the decision be carried through?
Data, ownership, Engineering / Quality approval, Planning, material readiness and Production handoff.
Then I would pick the few places where a sourcing decision can materially change the outcome.
Not change for the sake of looking strategic. Not add suppliers because “dual source” sounds safer. The priority should be the places where the risk, cost or execution problem is real enough to justify the work.
What you would get from me
Challenge the right thing. Make the decision clear. Stay with it until it works.
I would rather challenge the value chain properly than add activity that looks strategic.
I do not know NOVENCO's supplier portfolio yet, and I would not pretend to. What I can bring is practical sourcing judgement, enough technical and operational depth to see the downstream consequence, and a direct way of working when a problem needs to be surfaced early.
The scale is new. The sourcing logic is not.
Romaric Clementi · Greater CopenhagenPrivate follow-up note · September 2026 · not a NOVENCO document