In this week's Mini-Simulation, we were asked to decide whether to have one backup vendor or multiple vendors to the coating material of the catheter. It was mentioned in the Mini-Simulation that as the number of vendors increases the time, and cost of the project, as we need to perform validation and verification tests on each vendor's product. What was your decision? and how did you take this decision?
While I was not a part of the Mini-Simulation, I believe I would have sided with multiple vendors. Without knowing all of the ramifications that might have been discussed, I think having more than one option is the way to go. Although I see that multiple vendors causes for more time and money, I believe that accounting for such on the front end or, during the initial planning phase, this can be alleviated. I also think that having multiple vendors can also dwindle the possibility of losing out on money in the future. For example, if a team were to only have one vendor and it ends up not working out, the team will then have to spend time, money, and energy on the back end searching for another when it could have been taken care of from the beginning. Thank you for the interesting scenario!
@delany Great job with this post. I too did not participate in the simulation but I can tell you from being involved in several different projects that having multiple vendors is never a bad idea. Part of the planning process is knowing that you’re going to need back ups to your back ups. I also reflect on in recent times watching what’s going on with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and how one of the suppliers emergent is getting major ridicule for 15 million vaccines being damaged as a result of a malfunction in one of their facilities in Baltimore. As a result the supply chain has been completely disrupted. You would think a large biotech company would have these things figured out but even large scale companies have to retool and rely on multiple distributors and vendors. I believe this week they were asked to cease and desist all operations or further manufacture of components of the vaccine as a result of their mistakes so having other vendors lined up is definitely something to consider especially when dealing with life saving medical devices and Biologics.
In this case, I would choose multiple vendors regardless of the extra time that it may take. This is similar to creating a management plan but not having a backup plan when things go astray. Taking the extra time to plan a backup plan for it ahead of time decreases the possibility of the project being severely delayed if things do go wrongs. It’s the same for the vendors. If backup vendors have already been designated, the project will continue on schedule or with minimal delay.
In this week's Mini-Simulation, we were asked to decide whether to have one backup vendor or multiple vendors to the coating material of the catheter. It was mentioned in the Mini-Simulation that as the number of vendors increases the time, and cost of the project, as we need to perform validation and verification tests on each vendor's product. What was your decision? and how did you take this decision?
I would definitely go with having a backup vendor for the coating material of the catheter. This would increase the time and the cost of the project, but the time addition could be mitigated by validating the vendor backup coating at the same time as the primary. This should ultimately be planned and budgeted for before pursuing the coating of the project, so the cost and time are accounted for.
In this case, I would choose multiple vendors regardless of the extra time that it may take. This is similar to creating a management plan but not having a backup plan when things go astray. Taking the extra time to plan a backup plan for it ahead of time decreases the possibility of the project being severely delayed if things do go wrongs. It’s the same for the vendors. If backup vendors have already been designated, the project will continue on schedule or with minimal delay.
Great post, and you do bring some valid points; having a backup plan in advance is a smart idea to avoid delays in case of any issues; having backup vendors will indeed help the project stay on schedule.
I agree that having multiple vendors is important to have when doing a project. However, at what point in the project would you consider to go with the backup vendor and at what cost? Would you sacrifice quality for time?
It is interesting to read perspectives from a cohort of students from almost one year ago. I would have to say I do agree with everyone in that always having multiple contingency plans, in this case multiple vendors for procurement, allows for a more accurate timeline, despite resulting in a late finish or additional costs given the need for further testing to verify and validate the changed specifications. However, no one mentioned how overall this question is dependent on the situation, hence, why both outcomes resulted in the end of the simulation. For a company that is able to allocate funds from the total budget and whose late finish does not conflict with major deadlines this would be a welcomed suggestion as part of risk management. However, extra funds and flexible timelines are not always possible - in which case, having narrow specifications with still another backup vendor for sourcing should be acceptable.
I think it's best to have as many backup options for when worse comes to worst similar to the sim from last week where an unplanned cytotoxicity problem got in the way of business. We had to find an alternative so that we wouldn't lose business and part of finding alternatives is having backup vendors. So when it comes to dealing with vendors for a specific project I believe there needs to be a balance to utilize time and money efficiently, but having connections for when unexpected inconveniences occur is crucial.
After reviewing the mini-simulation, it became apparent that as the number of vendors increased, this would lead to a direct correlation with various other factors relating to the project. The other factors that would increase would be the time, cost, and width of specifications for the component. Starting with the time, this was made apparent due to having more factors and outside influence on the project once more vendors were introduced. This means that there are more people and more angles to be able to solve the problem which would in turn lead to more time being spent. Very similarly, the cost would be increased based on the same logic. There are more vendors which mean there are more people working with your team on the project and this could lead to more components or prototypes needing to be created, which will increase the total cost. Lastly, the width of specifications for the component will also increase due to each of the vendors not working in the same exact way as the others due. This can lead to slight variations of the same component and this is something that a team must take into consideration when evaluating the other vendor's products.
I chose to have just one extra vendor for the coating in the assigned mini-sim, not only because it would increase the time and cost for the project if we had multiple back up vendors, but because it would also force us to widen the acceptable ranges for the product specifications, which in my opinion is not worth the safety net having multiple back up vendors allows. Widening that range increases means that the risk is also increased because, as seen with the vendor options we had, not only was the maximum coefficient of friction doubled for some of the vendors, the main ingredients of the coatings provided by those vendors was also drastically different from the main ingredient we are looking to use. The risk that comes from having to work with differences such as that definitely outweighs the benefits of having them as a back up resource. If I were to be put into this situation in a real world setting, I would make the same decision here and go with only one extra vendor, potentially two if the product from the second extra vendor had specifications that were similar enough to our own to warrant the extra cost and time needed to incorporate them. Any more than two would most definitely be a waste of resources for the project.
My decision in the mini-sim was to go with only one other vendor. The ask was for at least one other vendor to source the coating from for the project therefore I thought it unnecessary to look for 2 other vendors. The one vendor, AquaWoah, was also closest in spec to Conmodic's coating therefore the changes in the DSD did not need to be changed much. I agree with the points above that having multiple other options to choose from for procurement is a great plan and usually will ensure production never stops, but on the other hand I'd have to take a look at the project as a whole and make a decision from there. For example, if we are behind on the project and we need to make up for lost time, I'd likely go with only dual sourcing the coating rather than take the time and money to source from other vendors which may reduce risk but delay the project even further.
I chose to have more than one vendors in the mini-simulation. In my opinion, even though the team might need to spend more time and the cost might increase when choosing more vendors. Also, the width of specifications for the component could be increased too.However, choosing more vendor can decrease the risk. In that situation, I would like to choose more than one vendors to be safe since some unexpected things might happen sometimes. Choosing more vendor could reduce the negative affect in those unexpected situations. In my opinion, just one vendor and no backup might be too risky. Choosing more vendors will increase multiple factors but choosing just one vendor without any backup could delay the schedule and affect the whole project.
For the mini simulation I selected multiple vendors. I agree with the above posts that suggest the cost and resources needed to validate multiple vendors is justified since the business disruption risk is too high with only one vendor. If a vendor is not able to supply the needed materials, business continuity is disrupted which can lead to financial risk and decreased revenue. In addition, considering the global supply chain crisis that is happening right now it is difficult to predict when/where supplies will be available. Overall, it is beneficial to have multiple vendors validated in case the current vendors cannot meet the demand need.
I chose to have a singular vendor as it made it much easier to control the specific attributes, such as the percent concentration of the hyaluronan. With a single vendor backup the possibility of things going wrong between two similar products would decrease. This further allows us to control the variables in case something goes wrong as there are only a limited number of changes between the two products. The familiarity of the compound used to make the coating hydrophilic is also another great reason as there will not be a reason to train people on the difference between the different compounds. This inherently also makes the sale of the product much easier as there won't be many different options to choose from and cause confusion.
