The Supplier Collaboration Index measures the effectiveness of partnerships between organizations and their suppliers, impacting operational efficiency and financial health.
High collaboration fosters innovation, reduces costs, and enhances forecasting accuracy.
Companies with strong supplier relationships often see improved business outcomes, such as faster time-to-market and increased ROI.
This KPI serves as a leading indicator for strategic alignment and can guide management reporting efforts.
By tracking this index, executives can identify areas for improvement and drive data-driven decisions that enhance overall performance.
Supplier Collaboration Index belongs to four of KPI Depot's KPI groups: Supplier Relationship Management, Supply Chain Digitization, ISO 22004, and Automotive Supplier. In each it is a supporting metric rather than a headline one, ranked well below the delivery and quality KPIs that lead those KPI groups. In Supplier Relationship Management the leaders are Supplier Quality Rating, On-time Delivery Rate, and Supplier Performance Scorecard; in Automotive Supplier they are On-time Delivery and Delivery In Full, On Time Rate. Collaboration sits behind all of them.
Its balanced scorecard perspective is internal process, and it has no standard formula. It is a composite score built from several collaboration factors, which is itself a signal that it measures a softer, longer-horizon capability than the hard delivery metrics around it.
That gap is the tension. The metrics leading these KPI groups reward this quarter's delivery and cost, and Cost of Goods Sold sits among them in Supplier Relationship Management. Joint innovation and co-production, the things this index tracks, cost time and money now and pay back over several cycles, so delivery and cost pressure tend to starve exactly the collaboration this metric rewards. The KPI group member that reconciles them is Supplier Satisfaction Index: collaboration suppliers experience as genuine partnership tends to show up later as steadier delivery and lower total cost, while collaboration in name only does not.
There is no standard formula here. The metric is a composite score assembled from collaboration factors you choose, so the first and most consequential decision is which factors go in and how they are weighted. Two organizations can both report a Supplier Collaboration Index and be measuring different things.
Decide the perspective before the arithmetic. A score built from your own assessment of suppliers reads differently from one built from suppliers rating you, and the Better Buying pattern shows how much the supplier-rated view can differ. Decide the population too: an index averaged across all suppliers hides the picture at the few strategic partners where joint innovation actually happens, so a segment for strategic suppliers usually matters more than the blended number.
Watch two traps. First, composite drift, where changing the factor set or the weights between periods makes the score move for reasons that have nothing to do with real collaboration. Second, survey bias, since much of the input is qualitative and self-reported, and relationships people want to protect tend to get rated generously. Lock the factor definitions and the respondent set before you compare one period to the next.
Many organizations underestimate the importance of supplier collaboration, leading to missed opportunities for operational efficiency.
Enhancing supplier collaboration requires intentional strategies that foster engagement and alignment.
We have 16 relevant benchmarks in our benchmarks database.
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | $5–$24 million revenue | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | $50–$249 million revenue | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | $25–$49 million revenue | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | Asia Pacific | n=30 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | North America | n=47 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | Eastern Europe & Africa | n=115 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | Western Europe | n=112 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | East Asia | n=232 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | Latin America | n=75 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | South Asia | n=165 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | points | average | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | China & Hong Kong | n=349 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | BBPI score | 2022 | supplier ratings | softgoods | global | 1,162 supplier ratings; 160 buyer companies |
Browse the Top Benchmarked KPIs in Supplier Relationship Management
The benchmarks KPI Depot tracks for this metric all come from a single source, the Better Buying Institute, drawn from softgoods supplier ratings and split many ways, by revenue band and across a wide set of regions, from North America and Western Europe to South Asia, East Asia, Latin America, and China and Hong Kong. The apparent breadth is geographic and size slicing of one dataset in one industry, not several independent sources agreeing, so it should be read as one methodology viewed from many angles rather than an established cross-industry norm.
There is a definitional gap worth flagging before borrowing any of it. The Better Buying Institute measures purchasing practices as rated by suppliers, a view of how buyers behave toward their suppliers. This KPI measures the effectiveness of collaborative initiatives such as joint innovation or co-production. Those are related but not the same construct, and a figure built from one does not transfer cleanly to the other.
Because the metric has no standard formula and is a composite, the things to verify before trusting any external figure are which collaboration factors it rolled in, whose perspective it captured, buyer or supplier, and which industry and region it covered, since softgoods in one region need not resemble your own supply base.
Across its KPI groups, the strongest OKR home for this metric is Supplier Relationship Management, whose framing treats both risk mitigation and supplier-driven innovation as sources of competitive advantage. The KPI group's worked objectives center on reliability, on-time delivery, lead time, and contract compliance, so Supplier Collaboration Index does not appear as a delivery key result. Its natural place is a separate objective about deepening strategic supplier partnerships.
A workable framing for a customer sets an objective on turning key suppliers into innovation partners, then uses Supplier Collaboration Index as the key result that tracks whether joint initiatives are taking hold, paired with a delivery or quality metric from the same KPI group so partnership is not pursued at the expense of performance. Keep the key result directional, a steady rise in collaboration depth with named strategic suppliers, rather than a fixed score, given how much the composite depends on its own definition.
This KPI is associated with the following categories and industries in our KPI database:
KPI Depot takes you from KPI intelligence to finished deliverable. Consultants, strategy teams, FP&A leaders, and analytics teams use it to answer the two hardest questions in performance management, what to measure and what the target should be, and then to produce the scorecard itself.
The difference is intelligence, not just data. Anyone can list metrics. Every KPI in KPI Depot carries 13 practical attributes, from formula and measurement approach to diagnostic questions, risk warnings, and Balanced Scorecard perspective, across 15 corporate functions and 153 industries. And every target you set is grounded in our database of 34,304 source-attributed benchmarks, each detailing metric value, company size, time period, industry, geography, sample size, and source. Benchmark data at this scale is otherwise the domain of research services costing thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
When your metrics are selected, KPI Depot finishes the job: export an interactive Strategy Map, a Balanced Scorecard with formulas and tracking columns, or a CSV KPI pack, and go from research to working deliverable in hours instead of weeks.
Formerly the Flevy KPI Library, KPI Depot is trusted by teams at organizations including Accenture, EY, IBM, PepsiCo, Samsung, and Vodafone.
Got a question? Email us at [email protected].
The Supplier Collaboration Index measures the effectiveness of partnerships between organizations and their suppliers. It evaluates communication, alignment, and overall engagement in the supply chain.
Improvement can be achieved through regular joint planning sessions and utilizing collaborative technologies. Establishing performance metrics that include supplier feedback also enhances engagement.
A low index often signals misalignment and potential supply chain disruptions. It may reflect poor communication and a lack of shared goals between the organization and its suppliers.
Regular reviews, ideally quarterly, help ensure that collaboration remains effective. Frequent assessments allow organizations to address issues proactively and adjust strategies as needed.
Yes, technology can significantly enhance supplier collaboration. Collaborative platforms facilitate real-time communication and information sharing, leading to improved transparency and responsiveness.
Supplier feedback is crucial for understanding areas of improvement and fostering stronger relationships. Incorporating this feedback into performance metrics drives continuous enhancement in collaboration efforts.
Each KPI in our knowledge base includes 13 attributes.
A clear explanation of what the KPI measures
The typical business insights we expect to gain through the tracking of this KPI
An outline of the approach or process followed to measure this KPI
The standard formula organizations use to calculate this KPI
Insights into how the KPI tends to evolve over time and what trends could indicate positive or negative performance shifts
Questions to ask to better understand your current position is for the KPI and how it can improve
Practical, actionable tips for improving the KPI, which might involve operational changes, strategic shifts, or tactical actions
Recommended charts or graphs that best represent the trends and patterns around the KPI for more effective reporting and decision-making
Potential risks or warnings signs that could indicate underlying issues that require immediate attention
Suggested tools, technologies, and software that can help in tracking and analyzing the KPI more effectively
How the KPI can be integrated with other business systems and processes for holistic strategic performance management
Explanation of how changes in the KPI can impact other KPIs and what kind of changes can be expected
NEW Mapping to a Balanced Scorecard perspective (financial, customer, internal process, learning & growth)