Vendor Performance Review Cycle (generic process)

Vendor Performance Review Cycle (generic process) is the generic process card, GP-402, for the monthly cycle by which a workforce function scores every external supply node it places work with, reviews the score with the partner, agrees corrective action, settles the fee placed at risk and decides whether the score moves any allocation. On this wiki vendor management is not a function. The partner is a node, like a hub or a service center; placing work with it is a decision of the placement function; and reviewing how the placed work performs is a process of that same function, run on the same instrument and the same definitions as the review of any internal node. A separate vendor-management function with its own scorecard produces the second, weaker operating model that Operating Principles for Work Placement warns against, and two scorecards let a partner optimise the cheaper one. The comparability conditions a scorecard must satisfy, the three components it measures (quality, efficiency, reliability) and the two instruments that convert score into consequence (fee at risk and allocation) are specified on Performance-Based Vendor Allocation Design; the scorecard's contractual frame on BPO and Vendor Workforce Management; the change record any allocation consequence produces on Vendor Change Control for Routing. None of that is restated. This card carries the cycle: its calendar, its seats, its record. It is part of Process Standardization and sits under the work-placement section of the function catalog in Anatomy of a ROC Standard.

The cycle's discipline rests on an old caution: a supplier ranked on outcomes that are dominated by the system it operates within has been ranked on the system, not on its own performance. The monthly cycle therefore has a comparability check before it has a scorecard, a method owner who signs the method, and a function head who signs the findings; neither approves the consequence.

Process profile

The profile extends the L0 identity fields of Process Decomposition (L0–L3). Local values are marked SET LOCALLY.

Field	Generic value
Card	GP-402 · local card id assigned by the standards committee at deployment
Class	supporting, in the catalog's four-class vocabulary (strategic · real-time · both · supporting); its allocation consequence feeds the strategic placement decision, and its ramp rows read the real-time record
Trigger	the business-day calendar: the cycle opens on the first business day after the month's actuals close (SET LOCALLY)
Cadence	monthly per partner supply seat (one supplier, one body of work, one commercial form); a cross-partner calibration quarterly; weights reviewed only at a date announced in advance
Scope in	every external supply node; every body of work placed there; the three components per channel; the corrective-action register; the fee-at-risk settlement; the allocation consequence
Scope out	the placement decision that put the work there (Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process)); the contract's negotiation and renewal; invoice validation and rate-card true-ups (BPO and Vendor Management for WFM); the routing change itself (Vendor Change Control for Routing); the daily performance conversation at the partner's site
Inputs	the month's interaction-level data from the buyer's systems; the partner's own reported figures (reconciliation inputs only); the contract's bands, fee-at-risk mechanism and renewal date; the ramp commitment from the gate output; the comparability map; last month's corrective actions
Outputs	the signed scorecard per partner and channel, every number carrying its number grade; the review record; the corrective-action register; the fee-at-risk settlement; the allocation decision (moved, held, or deferred to renewal) with its reason; the updated supply card
Upstream	the gate output and its ramp commitment; the definitions register; the forecast delivered to the partner under the contract's forecasting obligation; the capacity state from intraday automation
Downstream	change control (an allocation move); the capacity plan (a partner's committed staffing); the sourcing decision (the supply card's quality and reliability fields); finance (the settlement); the recompute log (a card that materially changed is a trigger)
Resources	one measurement instrument across nodes; the scorecard template; the comparability map; the corrective-action register; the fee-at-risk calculation; the guardrail check. Platforms are named at L3, never here
Decision points	is every comparison path the scorecard states a delta on at comparability grade A or B on the map; is any component outside its contracted band; does the index move the allocation inside the guardrails and the capacity gate
Authority tier	per the work-placement row of Decision Authority Tiers in Workforce Operations: the method owner (tier 3) signs the method; the function head (tier 4) signs the scorecard findings as the function's advice; corrective action is agreed with the partner by the partner's oversight owner; an allocation move is approved by the change-control board, a forum rather than a tier, under Vendor Change Control for Routing; a change to the design of the partner network itself (a seat opened, closed or re-scoped) goes to the executive sponsor
Risk and compliance flags	a scorecard built on the partner's own figures is unaudited; a consequence applied on an unvalidated adjustment loses credibility with every partner at once; interaction-level data crossing a jurisdiction engages data-protection law; the commercial pen and the daily performance conversation are held by different seats and the cycle must not merge them
Variant-prone steps	the data pull where law restricts export; the fee step where a contract carries no fee-at-risk clause; the scorecard format where a predecessor organization's format is still contracted
Automation candidates	ten L2 sub-steps (listed below)

L1 flow

Fifteen steps, three decisions. Owners are seats. The partner's oversight owner is the buyer-side seat at the shared-service vendor team that holds the commercial pen, as Vendor Change Control for Routing places it.

1. Open the cycle on the first business day after the month's actuals close; confirm the partner list and each seat's contract bands — placement analyst.
2. Pull the month's data on one instrument per body of work from the buyer's own systems; take the partner's reported figures as reconciliation inputs only — reporting analyst.
3. Reconcile the partner's figures to the pull; log each discrepancy with its definitional cause and open a definitions-register row where the definitions differ — reporting analyst.
4. Is every comparison path the scorecard will state a delta on at comparability grade A or B on the map? — method owner. Yes → 5; no → paths at comparability grade C are reported as direction only and paths at D separately, with no stated delta.
5. Assemble the scorecard per channel on the three components and the single index as Performance-Based Vendor Allocation Design defines them, ramp attainment read against the gate's milestones; every number with its number grade — placement analyst.
6. Validate and sign the method: the case-mix adjustment has been refitted on the cadence at which the work changes, and where the routing layer assigns a slice of work at random the adjusted ranking agrees with the ranking on that slice — method owner (tier 3), a seat separate from the signatory of the findings and from any approver of consequences.
7. Issue the pre-read to the partner and open the dispute path with its closing date — the partner's oversight owner (buyer-side).
8. Hold the bilateral review: findings by component, root causes, open disputes, the status of last month's actions — placement lead with the oversight owner; the partner present.
9. Is any component outside its contracted band? — placement lead. Yes → 10; no → 11.
10. Agree the corrective action with the partner: one owner, one due date, the measure that closes it; close or carry each prior action — oversight owner.
11. Sign the findings as the function's advice: the scorecard, the review record and the actions — function head (tier 4).
12. Compute the fee at risk on the single index and the contract's mechanism; pass the settlement to the oversight owner, who alone transacts it — placement analyst; oversight owner.
13. Does the index move the allocation inside the guardrails and the capacity gate? — placement lead. Yes → raise a change request for the change-control board under Vendor Change Control for Routing; no → record "held" with its reason; a move the contract makes expensive is queued to the renewal date.
14. Publish the cycle record: scorecard, review minutes, actions, settlement, allocation decision; update the partner's supply card — registers' steward.
15. Quarterly, calibrate across partners on aggregate distributions, never a leaderboard; confirm or amend the weights only at the announced date — method owner.

L2 step table

The generic sub-steps. Bands, weights, the readout dates and platform names are L3 values and read SET LOCALLY.

Step	Sub-step	Owner (seat)	Inputs	Outputs	Duration	Automation candidate	Documentation join key
1	1.1 Confirm the partner list, the bands per seat and the renewal dates	placement analyst	the contract register	cycle sheet	minutes	Y (lookup)	L3-402-01
2	2.1 Run the data pull per body of work on the one instrument	reporting analyst	the buyer's systems of record	month's data set with number grades	same day	Y (extraction)	L3-402-02
2	2.2 Receive the partner's reported figures	reporting analyst	partner report	reconciliation input	same day	N	L3-402-02
3	3.1 Reconcile; classify each discrepancy (definition, coverage, timing, error)	reporting analyst	the pull; the partner figures	discrepancy log	one sitting	Y (matching)	L3-402-03
3	3.2 Open a definitions-register row for each definitional difference	reporting analyst	discrepancy log	register rows	minutes	N	L3-402-03
4	4.1 Read the comparability grade of each path on the map; mark C and D rows	method owner	the comparability map	reporting rule per row	minutes	Y (lookup)	L3-402-04
5	5.1 Compute the components per channel and the single index per the method page	placement analyst	the data set; the published weights	component scores; index	one sitting	Y (arithmetic)	L3-402-05
5	5.2 Read ramp attainment against the gate's milestones; attrition at account level with tenure distribution	placement analyst	ramp sheet; partner staffing extract reconciled to system access	reliability rows	one sitting	N	L3-402-05
6	6.1 Check the adjustment's refit and the random-slice agreement; sign the method	method owner	the model record; the slice ranking	signed method	one sitting	N — never	L3-402-06
7	7.1 Issue the pre-read; log the dispute window	oversight owner	signed scorecard	pre-read record	same day	Y (issue)	L3-402-07
8	8.1 Run the review to the standing agenda; minute findings and disputes	placement lead; oversight owner	scorecard; prior actions	review minutes	one meeting	N	L3-402-08
9	9.1 Compare each component to its band; list breaches	placement lead	scorecard; bands	breach list	minutes	Y (comparison)	L3-402-08
10	10.1 Agree owner, date and closing measure per breach; close or carry prior actions	oversight owner	breach list; action register	updated action register	inside the review	N — never	L3-402-09
11	11.1 Sign the findings as the function's advice	function head	scorecard; minutes; actions	signed findings	same day	N — never	L3-402-09
12	12.1 Compute the fee at risk on the index and the mechanism; pass to the oversight owner	placement analyst; oversight owner	index; contract mechanism	settlement instruction	same day	Y (arithmetic)	L3-402-10
13	13.1 Run the guardrail check as the method page defines it (floors, ceilings, deadband, capacity gate, sample threshold)	placement lead	index; guardrails; capacity state	move, hold, or defer to renewal	minutes	Y (check)	L3-402-11
13	13.2 Raise the change request where the check passes	placement lead	guardrail result	change request to the board	same day	N	L3-402-11
14	14.1 Publish the record; update the supply card; flag a material change as a recompute trigger	registers' steward	all outputs	cycle record; card update	same day	Y (filing)	L3-402-12
15	15.1 Quarterly calibration on aggregate distributions; weight review at the announced date	method owner	four cycles' records	calibration note	one sitting a quarter	N	L3-402-13

Variants

The known variant classes, recorded per Standard and Variant in Process Documentation:

• Statutory. A jurisdiction whose data-protection law forbids interaction-level export from the partner's site varies the data pull (2.1) to in-jurisdiction sampling on the same instrument, with the number grade that sampling earns; the method owner owns the step and the function head approves on legal advice.
• Contractual. Bands, weights and the fee mechanism are parameters of the contract, marked SET LOCALLY, and take no variant row. A contract with no fee-at-risk clause removes step 12 for that seat under a variant row dated to the renewal, when the clause is negotiated.
• Structural. A partner with no data feed to the buyer's systems is scored from its own reports, each figure at number grade [A] and every path at comparability grade C on the map at best; the pull step is varied with a review date each quarter until the feed exists, and no allocation consequence runs on a path at comparability grade C.
• Transitional. A seat inherited from a predecessor organization whose scorecard format is written into the contract carries both formats under a variant row until the renewal date, which the standards committee records as the expiry.

L3 register

A localizing team writes these job aids against the generic L2; names only. Bands, weights and dates are SET LOCALLY in the L2 rows; each decision branch is an L2 row of its own.

Job aid	Anchored to	Form
L3-402-01 The cycle calendar and the partner-seat sheet with bands and renewal dates	step 1	work instruction
L3-402-02 The data-pull specification per body of work on the one instrument	step 2	work instruction
L3-402-03 The reconciliation sheet and the discrepancy classification	step 3	work instruction
L3-402-04 The comparability map and the reporting rule per comparability grade	step 4	work instruction; method on Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data
L3-402-05 The scorecard template: components, channels, index, number grades	step 5	work instruction; components on Performance-Based Vendor Allocation Design
L3-402-06 The method-validation checklist: refit record, random-slice agreement, weight record	step 6	work instruction
L3-402-07 The pre-read and the dispute path	step 7	work instruction
L3-402-08 The review agenda and minutes form	steps 8 to 9	playbook
L3-402-09 The corrective-action register and the findings signature block	steps 10 to 11	playbook
L3-402-10 The fee-at-risk calculation sheet per contract mechanism	step 12	work instruction
L3-402-11 The guardrail check and the renewal-deferral note	step 13	work instruction
L3-402-12 The cycle record layout and the supply-card update	step 14	work instruction
L3-402-13 The quarterly calibration pack	step 15	playbook
L3-402-14 The cycle when a partner's staffing collapses mid-month (ramp or attrition breach ahead of the review)	steps 5 to 10	runbook

Automation candidates

Flagged at L2 per Process Decomposition (L0–L3); released per class of action on a published catch rate per Human Gates and Number Grades, never on a maturity label. The list is ranked by how easy a catch rate is to publish: the ten L2 rows marked Y, in order.

1. The data pull (2.1): a deterministic extraction on the one instrument from the buyer's own systems; every error is a row the reconciliation can count.
2. The partner-seat lookup (1.1): ranks after the pull only because a lapsed band or renewal date is caught later, at the review, rather than at the pull.
3. The reconciliation match (3.1): ranks after the lookup because matching two sources adds the failure class of a false match, with the definitional causes left to a human row.
4. The comparability-map lookup (4.1): ranks after the match because the map is maintained by hand and a stale comparability grade is an error the lookup cannot see.
5. The component and index arithmetic (5.1): ranks after the lookups because its catch rate depends on the number grades of its inputs as well as on the formula.
6. The fee computation (12.1): ranks after the index because it inherits the index's errors and adds the contract mechanism's.
7. The band comparison (9.1): ranks after the fee because a breach list is only as good as the bands the seat sheet carries.
8. The guardrail check (13.1): ranks after the band comparison because it reads the capacity state as well as the index; running it in a live-but-inert state, publishing the move it would have made while moving nothing, is how the check earns its catch rate before any volume moves.
9. The pre-read issue (7.1): ranks after the guardrail check because an issuing error is caught by the partner, outside the function's own verification.
10. The record filing (14.1): last because a filing error is silent until a recompute or an audit needs the record.

Three steps are never candidates. The method owner's signature (6.1) is the separation that keeps the method from being tuned to produce a preferred outcome. The corrective-action agreement (10.1) is a bilateral commitment and a human act. The function head's signature on the findings (11.1) is what makes the scorecard the function's advice, and the allocation move that may follow is approved by the change-control board, not by any seat in this process, because measurement produces signal continuously while a partner's capacity responds over months; the oscillation this delay produces is the method page's argument, and the general result that decision-makers misperceive feedback under delay is documented experimentally. Rewarding the easily measured component at the expense of the harder one is the multitask incentive problem, which is why efficiency is normalised by resolution rather than by handle time before any arithmetic is released. Control of externally provided processes is also a documented quality-management requirement, which the cycle's record satisfies.

Maturity Model Position

Four scales on this wiki use the word level; the launch page states which is which. On the WFM Labs Maturity Model™ a monthly scorecard from partner-supplied data with a penalty tied to service level is Level 2; the cycle above, on one instrument from the buyer's systems with a comparability check, a separate method owner and a corrective-action register, is the Level 3 process this card defines; a cycle whose adjustment is validated against a randomly assigned slice, whose single index drives both fee and allocation, and whose guardrails are derived rather than asserted is Level 4, as Performance-Based Vendor Allocation Design places it. The distinction between the two upper levels is testable in one question: what would falsify the current ranking.

See Also

• Process Standardization — the hub and the inventory this card belongs to
• Performance-Based Vendor Allocation Design — comparability, the three components, fee at risk and allocation, guardrails, the oscillation argument
• BPO and Vendor Workforce Management — the contractual frame: service-level pass-through, forecasting obligations, the scorecard as a governance event
• BPO and Vendor Management for WFM — rate cards, invoice validation and true-ups, out of scope here
• Vendor Change Control for Routing — the change record an allocation consequence produces; the oversight owner's seat
• Vendor Governance Placement — why standard-setting, measurement and enforcement are separable seats
• Decision Authority Tiers in Workforce Operations — the tier ladder the Authority row follows
• Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process) — the decision whose ramp commitment this cycle reads
• Standard and Variant in Process Documentation — how the variants above are recorded
• Wiki:Packs/Service Quality Comparability — the pack that builds the comparability map (CP-WFM-003)