Compare suppliers
Supplier comparison is not a price list. Argumont holds quality history, variance in lead time, and dual-source designs on the same scorecard.
decision
Suppliers fail politely in emails and expensively in shortages. Argumont compares named suppliers and dual-source designs against quality, lead time, and concentration.
This is procurement with physical consequences. Price per unit is one criterion. Missed lots are another.
The incumbent supplier is an option even if the relationship is strained. Switching is an option with its own defect risk.
Awarding on unit price, then paying in expedites. The analysis should include the cost of being late.
Another mistake is treating a factory tour as a process audit.
Lot history, on-time percentages, financial health where you can get it, and the existence of a second qualified source. User-confirmed internal quality data stays labeled as such.
Defects and escapes, not brochures.
Variance, not the promised median.
How many eggs are in that site.
Qualification time and engineering attention.
Personal trust substitutes for measured performance.
The supplier's other customers take the line.
Stay with the current supplier, dual-source 30%, or move the whole volume. Dual-source has a real coordination cost.
Supplier comparison is not a price list. Argumont holds quality history, variance in lead time, and dual-source designs on the same scorecard.
A manufacturing decision locks tooling, quality, and geography. Argumont compares make, buy, dual-source, and delay, with yield and concentration as first-class...
A supplier change is not only a unit price. It is qualification time, quality variance, and what happens if the new source fails in month two.
These pages are not a directory of keywords. Each one describes a kind of choice, the evidence it needs, how Argumont scores it, and where to go next.
Argumont challenges assumptions, researches evidence, compares competing approaches, and identifies the strongest decision.
Compare your suppliers