Kestrel — stages 3 and 4
◈ 5 cardsDevelop and analyse the alternatives, then decide and recommend, for Kestrel Outdoor Co.: the matrix with its weights and a reason per cell, the sensitivity that moves Tundra Line but not the answer, the bias check, and a conditional recommendation that handles the conflict of interest proportionately — each written before its model is shown.
Stage 3 for Kestrel — what R-psp-3 needs here
Alternatives. The obvious five — drop each supplier in turn — and one hybrid the case invites: drop one supplier now and put a second on a dated remediation deadline. Six alternatives, and the status quo (keep all five, forgo the saving) named and set aside with a reason. Criteria, each traced to a stakeholder objective, qualitative and quantitative both: gross-margin contribution (the CFO; scored on the margin rate, since consolidated volume will move to the survivors and the rate is what that volume earns — the margin dollars from stage 2 say how much must be re-sourced); quality — defect rate (store staff, customers); reliability — on-time delivery (store staff, customers); sustainability and ethical risk — the audit grade (the offshore workers, the public, the CFO's defensibility); strategic fit and customer value — exclusive lines, contract position (merchandising, customers). Weights, stated and justified. The outline fixes them: margin 0.25, quality 0.20, reliability 0.20, sustainability 0.20, fit 0.15 — the financial objective the memo was commissioned for weighs most; the three operational and ethical criteria weigh equally because each is held by several stakeholders; fit least, because it is the most qualitative. Sum 1.00. A reason in every cell. The figure below is the matrix; stage 3's text must give the sentence behind each score — Cedar & Co. reliability 1: 82 % on time, the only supplier the stores hold safety stock against. Sensitivity. The sustainability weight is the one a reader will push: raise it to 0.35 and cut margin to 0.10, and one supplier's total moves a great deal — say which, and whether the answer to the question asked (whom to drop) changes. Then equal weights. Bias check, in writing: the anchoring on Grey Jay that Lena's note invites; the small sample on Sable Peak; the sunk-cost pull of long relationships; the availability of the audit D as a reason to drop Tundra Line without weighing what its volume earns.
Stage 4 for Kestrel — what R-psp-4 needs here
One recommendation — one supplier to drop, with its timing. Linked to the matrix with the sensitivity in the same breath: robust for the question asked, and honest about what the sensitivity does move. Revisit the goals and values: the saving; the assortment; the customers who ask for Grey Jay; the offshore workers, whom a rate-and-volume answer would leave out. The ethical element inside: the conflict of interest is disclosed to the CFO as a fact about the source, with a proportionate action — Lena recuses from supplier decisions involving Cedar & Co. — and not as an accusation. The audit D is a condition: retained conditionally, with evidence of remediation by a dated checkpoint, else that supplier is next. The strongest counter-consideration answered — the case for dropping Tundra Line now. Top risk and mitigation. Next steps with owners and dates.
What the matrix shows — read the figure
Read the totals, then read the sensitivity note under them. Two things should strike you: how far the last supplier is from the fourth, and how much the sustainability weight moves Tundra Line without changing who is last. Those two facts are what stage 4 is built on.
Now write both stages
Stage 3 first — the alternatives, the criteria, the weights, every cell's reason, the sensitivity and the bias check. Commit; read the model. Then stage 4.