Supplier performance needs shared evidence, not another static score.
Supplier performance needs shared evidence, not another static score.
Supplier performance needs shared evidence, not another static score.
Supplier performance needs shared evidence, not another static score.
I redesigned a legacy supplier scorecard into a comparison-ready reporting workflow—making KPI health, trends, and validation easier to review and discuss.
I redesigned a legacy supplier scorecard into a comparison-ready reporting workflow—making KPI health, trends, and validation easier to review and discuss.
I redesigned a legacy supplier scorecard into a comparison-ready reporting workflow—making KPI health, trends, and validation easier to review and discuss.
I redesigned a legacy supplier scorecard into a comparison-ready reporting workflow—making KPI health, trends, and validation easier to review and discuss.
Used by regional vendor and retail teams during recurring performance reviews
Coverage
Designed to support standardized supplier evaluation across multiple regions
[02]The pressure
Supplier reviews failed when scores could not be trusted.
Fragmented reports, inconsistent KPI definitions, and spreadsheet reconciliation made performance conversations slow and defensive.
01
Opaque scoring
Teams disagreed on how supplier health was calculated before they could discuss what to do next.
02
Weak comparison
Period-over-period and peer comparison lived outside the main scorecard workflow.
03
No shared action path
Summary views did not connect cleanly to validation evidence both sides could inspect.
Legacy PrecimaSupplier Scorecard and Comparison — density without a clear exception path
Vendor ScorecardFilters, OTIF gauges, and On Time vs Fill Rate — shared evidence for review conversations
[03]Research & Insights
Structure the density before modernizing the chrome.
I reviewed legacy reporting structure, metric definitions, and workflow patterns — then distilled four signals that shaped the layered scorecard.
01
Legacy structure
How the old scorecard was organized — summary, dense tables, and exports without a shared investigation path.
Interface behavior
Surface the reporting spine first so teams know where orientation ends and audit depth begins.
Reporting spine
SummaryKPI strip onlySoft
TablesFull SKU exportDense
ExportsOffline reviewCSV
No shared path →
02
Metric definitions
What each KPI actually meant — OTIF, fill rate, and risk flags needed shared formulas before trust.
Interface behavior
Lock shared formulas and risk flags so OTIF and fill rate mean the same thing in every review.
Shared definitions
Metric
Formula
Status
OTIF
On-time · in-full
Shared
Fill rate
Ordered vs shipped
Shared
Risk flag
Threshold breach
Review
Lock formulas →
03
Workflow patterns
Scan → compare → investigate — filters, period, and context shaped every metric read.
Interface behavior
Keep period and hierarchy continuous so comparison does not reset the investigation.
PeriodVendorRegion
Investigation path
Scan→Compare→Investigate
Keep filters →
04
Scorecard models
Layered reporting over flat dashboards — overview, trends, and compliance on one review path.
Interface behavior
Prefer a layered model so orientation and evidence share one scorecard without dumping every row first.
Scorecard layers
OverviewOrientation
TrendsMovement
ComplianceEvidence
One review path →
[04]Business requirement
Standardize the experience. Make comparison demonstrable.
Redesign the legacy supplier scorecard into NIQ standards and prototype comparison patterns — including chart comparison and sparkline label interactions — that hold up in client review conversations.
Standardize the experience
Bring the legacy scorecard into NIQ design patterns and visual standards.
Improve comparison workflows
Support side-by-side chart comparison and clearer metric interpretation.
Prototype for client conversations
Use interaction concepts like sparkline labels to communicate future product value.
Shared measures only matter when they lead to shared action.
I redesigned the Vendor Scorecard into a layered reporting workflow: KPI health → comparison → trend → validation.
01
Same frame
Make scoring transparent enough for retail and vendor teams to debate from the same frame.
OTIF 94.2%Fill 91.8%
02
One path
Support scan → compare → validate without leaving the reporting system.
Review path persistsScan step
03
Exploration → Discover
Preserve low-fi exploration evidence that shaped the final NIQ Discover direction.
KPI-First
Comparison
Investigation
Modular
NIQ Discover
Scorecard
[06]Intervention
KPI architecture before the final Discover surface.
Executive summary, comparison, and validation layered into one review-ready reporting spine.
Architecture
Report spine
One shared path for retail and vendor teams.
01KPI health
02Comparison
03Trend
04Validation
Core decisions
A
Executive KPI Summary
Surfaced high-level signals like OSA rate, missed sales, flags, value sales, and operational health.
B
Comparison and Trend Analysis
Supported current vs previous period review, standard vs promo analysis, and comparison across performance dimensions.
C
Detailed Validation
Connected summary signals to geo analysis, compliance details, root causes, and tabular evidence.
[07]Concepts
Four directions before Discover.
Low-fidelity directions that tested which reporting priority should lead — KPI, comparison, investigation, or a modular spine — before higher-fidelity design.
KPI-First
Executive KPI summary first — strong orientation, weak investigation depth.
Comparison-First
Trends and comparisons higher — better analysis, weaker scanability.
Investigation-First
Deep-dive tables early — too deep for first-pass review.
Modular Reporting
Balanced summary, trends, and records — closest to the final path.
[08]Convergence
What survived into the final NIQ Discover path.
Kept patterns from concept exploration — orientation, comparison, investigation, and modular layers.
KPI-First
Executive summary stayed first — orientation before analysis.
Comparison
Period and peer comparison stayed in the main path.
Investigation
Validation tables remained reachable without leaving the report.
Modular
Layered modules survived into the Discover experience.
[09]Workflow
Three paths through the same layered scorecard.
Information architecture around Overview, Performance, Trends, and Compliance — scan → compare → investigate → validate.
Scan Overview
Compare Performance · Trends
Investigate Signals
Validate Compliance
New user
First-time exploration of the scorecard
Orient
EntryFirst visit
Review filtersDate range
OverviewKPI summary
Identify signalsPerformance cues
InvestigateInvestigate deeper?
TrendsCompare
ComplianceEvidence
PerformancePeers
Review evidenceDetailed tables
ExportShare / close
EntryFirst visit
Review filtersDate range
OverviewKPI summary
Identify signalsPerformance cues
InvestigateInvestigate deeper?
TrendsCompare
ComplianceEvidence
PerformancePeers
Review evidenceDetailed tables
ExportShare / close
Designed for structure understanding and top-level scanning.
Power user
Advanced investigation and comparison
Analyze
EntryBusiness question
Quick filtersSettings
Compare toolsDimensions
Multi-viewSelect views
Performance
Trends
Overview
Compare regionsSections
Tooltip insightsScan detail
ComplianceDetails
Deep searchAudit
ExportFor review
EntryBusiness question
Quick filtersSettings
Compare toolsDimensions
Multi-viewSelect views
Performance
Trends
Overview
Compare regionsSections
Tooltip insightsScan detail
ComplianceDetails
Deep searchAudit
ExportFor review
Optimized for deep analysis and multi-dimensional comparison.
Returning user
Repeat monitoring of what changed
Monitor
EntryReturn to context
Validate filtersPeriod check
Scan deltasKPI change
+2.4 pts
Compare periodsIf significantSignificant change?
Key changesReview
-1.1 OSA
ComplianceIf neededNeed evidence?
MonitorSave
EntryReturn to context
Validate filtersPeriod check
Scan deltasKPI change
+2.4 pts
Compare periodsIf significantSignificant change?
Key changesReview
-1.1 OSA
ComplianceIf neededNeed evidence?
MonitorSave
Built for quick context resumption and change validation.
[10]Framework
Final NIQ Discover experience.
One connected scorecard path — Overview orientation, Performance comparison, Trends, and Compliance evidence without leaving the report. Screens advance while in view.
Final NIQ Discover product screens
Overview
Orient on supplier health first
Executive Overview with filters — scan risk and performance before diving deeper. The workflow begins with a shared scorecard surface, not another disconnected export.
Performance
Compare suppliers side by side
Performance keeps ranking and peer context in the same investigation path — so comparison stays beside the KPI that changed.
Trends
Read change over time
Trends keep period-over-period evidence visible while filters and selection context stay intact.
Compliance
Validate with detail tables
Compliance Details — evidence-backed records teams can trust without leaving Discover.
Screen 01 of 04: Orient on supplier health first
[11]Validation
How we tested the shared scorecard path.
Iterative review on real reporting behaviors — from KPI summary, to comparison, to evidence-backed follow-up.
“
The evolving structure made the scorecard easier to scan at the top level while still supporting deeper analytical follow-up.
01
What improved
BeforeAfter
02
What stayed essential
Record
Status
Proof
OTIF delta
Flagged
Linked
Fill rate
On track
Linked
Compliance
Review
Open
Root cause
Evidence
Row
Detailed tables and compliance views remained critical.
Users still needed evidence-backed records to validate what changed and why.
03
What feedback reinforced
Scan health and risk first — shared language before debate.
Layered reporting beat both a thin dashboard and an evidence dump — orientation and audit depth had to share one path.
“
Detailed views remained essential for validating performance shifts, so the final structure kept evidence accessible without making the overview too dense.
[12]Impact
What clearer supplier evidence unlocked.
Four outcomes from the redesigned path — audit speed, risk surfaced earlier, OTIF lift, and quarterly cost savings.
25%
Audit prep time reduced
$820K
Revenue risk surfaced earlier
15%
Supplier OTIF improved
$22.5K
Quarterly audit cost savings
[13]Next step
Same decision craft for your next operational fire.
Inventory, supply, or exception systems — a focused sprint for an investigation spine, explainable risk, and proof stakeholders can trust.
