Client Stories
Evidence from purchasing teams we have worked with
These accounts describe specific engagements—supplier counts, data sources, and review outcomes—not generic satisfaction scores.
We had lead-time data in SAP and quality holds in a separate SharePoint list. Acaciaway merged both into one scorecard per supplier. Our Q3 review with the fastener vendor took forty minutes instead of half a day of spreadsheet hunting.Jin-ho Park Senior Buyer, precision machining — Gumi
The written summaries are the part I did not expect to use as much as I do. I send them to engineering before we discuss whether to dual-source a component. One chart alone would not give them enough context.Mei Lin Tan Category Manager, electronics assembly — Penang
Honest caveat: the first cycle took longer than quoted because our supplier codes in the ERP did not match the quality system. Acaciaway flagged that in week one and we fixed it together. The second cycle ran on schedule.Choi Eun-ji Procurement Manager, industrial pumps — Daejeon
We commissioned the benchmark report for three sheet-metal vendors during a sourcing event. Finance asked for numbers, not opinions. The radar chart gave them a single page to compare OTIF and price drift side by side.David Okonkwo Sourcing Lead, agricultural equipment — Lagos (remote engagement)
Extended story
Hanil Precision — first annual scorecard cycle
Client: Tier-two automotive stamping plant, 34 active material suppliers
Engagement: Vendor Performance Scorecard Development, Q1–Q4 2024 review
Data sources: SAP MM exports, internal IQC rejection log (Excel)
Hanil's purchasing team ran supplier reviews twice a year but prepared charts individually. Two buyers used different OTIF definitions—one counted partial shipments as on-time, the other did not. Acaciaway facilitated a kickoff where quality and purchasing agreed on a single rule set before any charts were built.
During data cleaning, we found that four suppliers shared vendor codes with dormant accounts. Park Min-jae mapped the duplicates and confirmed corrections with Hanil's master data owner. The final packet included nineteen scorecards (one supplier had been inactive since March).
At the on-site presentation, the category manager used the exception appendix to open discussion with a bearing supplier whose lead-time variance spiked in Q3. The supplier acknowledged a raw-material allocation issue; Hanil negotiated a buffer-stock arrangement based on the documented trend rather than anecdote.
Outcome: Hanil re-engaged for the 2025 cycle with two additional custom metrics (packaging damage rate and ASN accuracy). Cycle time dropped from eight weeks to six because field mappings carried over.
Want to discuss a similar engagement for your team?
Submit a Brief