Considering the mini-sim from this week, going for multiple vendors can be more beneficial for next steps in terms of finalizing alternate sources for the coating material. In considering vendors available for a product, fitting the requirements stated within the design specification document shown within the mini-sim is not the only consideration for if the vendor’s product can be used. From my experience, it is the first step in determining potential alternatives, which is typically followed by test implementations of the product, leading to an understanding of what changes in procedure need to be made depending on the vendor, and an understanding of what differences exist in final data from use of the end product. If procedural changes show a greater timeline in creating the end product or greater difficulty in manufacturing, or final data differs greatly from data obtained with the current vendor, then alternative sources can be eliminated from consideration due to not leading to desired outcomes. The results from implementation can oftentimes be surprising, and depending on the desired end product,  the process of elimination can also eliminate all alternatives. With this in mind, while initially considering multiple vendors  increases time and cost of project, it also lowers the chance of not being left with the single backup vendor for use - consideration of all vendors widening available options that can later be narrowed down. This brings up a question - should these qualities of alternatives (ease of use, ease in manufacturing, etc.) have been included in the design specification document?

I decided to go with multiple vendors as decreasing the project risk is always a good practice, as well as the fact that the project as described was not time sensitive. In addition, there is always the fact that one of the alternate vendors might outperform the primary vendor and only actually testing will validate that. Having multiple vendors will also allow for more options to be chosen from if all three are used across different products. However, I can see how having stricter specifications can be beneficial as it can guarantee that a product will always be described with those parameters, rather than the fact that increasing the width of the specification makes the parameters of the finished product less certain.

In the mini-simulation, I decided to go with one backup vendor instead of multiple. My reasoning was based on balancing risk management with time and cost efficiency. Having at least one backup gives some protection in case the primary vendor has issues—like delays, quality problems, or supply disruptions—but avoids the extra burden of validating and verifying multiple products, which could slow the project down and stretch the budget.

I considered the regulatory requirements and the complexity of running multiple rounds of testing. Since every vendor’s coating material might have slightly different properties, each one would require its own set of verification and validation processes. That could lead to longer timelines and higher costs. By selecting one reliable backup, I felt we could still ensure continuity without overcomplicating the development process. It felt like the best middle-ground approach.