The bargaining power of supplier is a major determinant of the structure of an industry and also how much profit is available to organisation operating in that industry. Supplier is weak if:
- Substitutes are available and easy to access
- Suppliers are small and fragmented
- The industry is important to the seller
- The sellers' product or service is not an important of the industry's value chain
- The sellers' product or service is undifferentiated
- There are no significant switching costs
- There is no threat of forward integration.
Suppliers may have more power:
- If they are in concentrated numbers compared to buyers.
- If there are high switching costs associated with a move to another supplier.
- If they are able to integrate forward or begin producing the product themselves.
- If they have specific expertise or technology needed to manufacture goods.
- If their product is highly differentiated.
- If there are many buyers and none make up significant portions of sales.
- If there are no substitutes available.
- If there are strong end users who can exert power over the organization in favor of a supplier (This can be the case in labor situations).
In all of these cases, the bargaining power of suppliers is high to demand premium prices and set their own timelines.
LO 2, AC 2.2

A technical specification details the standards that a product or service must meet. Drawings (often called engineering drawings or technical drawings) are complementary to technical specifications Reference:
LO 3, AC 3.1

Competitive benchmarking
Competitive benchmarking is a direct competitor-to-competitor comparison of a product, service, process, or method. This form of benchmarking provides an opportunity to know yourself and your competition better; combine forces against another common competitor. An example of competitive benchmarking within the Department of Defense, might include contrasting Army and Air Force supply systems for Joint initiatives. Within the private sector, two or more American car companies might benchmark for mutual benefit against common international competitor; or, rival chemical companies benchmark for environmental compliance.
Benefits
- Comparing like processes
- Know your competition better
- Possible partnership
- Useful for planning and setting goals
- Similar regulatory issues
Challenges
- Difficult legal issues
- Relatively low performance improvement
- Threatening
- Limited by trade secrets
- May provide misleading information
- May not get best-in-class comparisons
- Competitors could capitalize on your weaknesses
Source: USN Benchmarking Handbook
Reference:
LO 1, AC 1.3

A responsibility assignment matrix[1] (RAM), also known as RACI matrix[2] (/relsi/) or linear responsibility chart[3] (LRC), describes the participation by various roles in complet-ing tasks or deliverables for a project or business process. RACI is an acronym derived from the four key responsibilities most typically used: responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed.[4] It is used for clarifying and defining roles and responsibilities in cross-functional or departmental projects and processes.[5] There are a number of alternatives to the RACI model.
Role distinction[edit]
There is a distinction between a role and individually identified people: a role is a descriptor of an associated set of tasks; may be performed by many people; and one person can perform many roles. For example, an organization may have ten people who can perform the role of project manager, although traditionally each project only has one project manager at any one time; and a person who is able to perform the role of project manager may also be able to perform the role of business analyst and tester.
R = Responsible (also recommender)Those who do the work to complete the task.[6] There is at least one role with a participation type of responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required (see also RASCI below for separately identifying those who participate in a sup-porting role).
A = Accountable (also approver or final approving authority)The one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, the one who ensures the prerequi-sites of the task are met and who delegates the work to those responsible.[6] In other words, an accountable must sign off (approve) work that responsible provides. There must be only one accountable specified for each task or deliverable.[7] C = Consulted (sometimes consultant or counsel)Those whose opinions are sought, typical-ly subject-matter experts; and with whom there is two-way communication.[6] I = Informed (also informee)Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable; and with whom there is just one-way communication.[6] Very often the role that is accountable for a task or deliverable may also be responsible for com-pleting it (indicated on the matrix by the task or deliverable having a role accountable for it, but no role responsible for its completion, i.e. it is implied). Outside of this exception, it is generally recommended that each role in the project or process for each task receive, at most, just one of the participation types. Where more than one participation type is shown, this generally implies that participation has not yet been fully resolved, which can impede the value of this technique in clarifying the participation of each role on each task.
Reference:
- CIPS study guide page 17
- Responsibility assignment matrix - Wikipedia
LO 1, AC 1.1

The threat of substitution is a function of three factors:
* The relative value/ price of a substitute compared to an industry's product
* The cost of switching to the substitute
* The buyer's propensity to switch
Buyers with different circumstances and in different industries do not all have equal propensities to substitute when faced with a comparable economic motivation. Differences in their circumstances lead buyers to respond to a given relative value to price (RVP) and switching cost differently. While such differences might be treated as factors that modify RVP or switching costs, it is more helpful in practice to isolate them.
Resources. Substitution often involves up-front investments of capital and other resources. Access to such resources will differ from one buyer to another.
Risk Profile. Buyers often have very different risk profiles, the result of such things as their past history, age and income, ownership structure, background and orientation of management, and nature of competition in their industry. Buyers prone to risk taking are more likely to substitute than buyers that are risk-averse.
Technological Orientation. Buyers experienced with technological change may be less concerned with some kinds of substitution risks, while extremely aware of others that a less technologically sophisticated buyer would be oblivious to.
Previous Substitutions. The second substitution may be easier for a buyer than the first, unless the first substitution has been a failure. The buyer's uncertainties over undertaking a substitution may have diminished if a past substitution has been successful, or risen if a past substitution has led to difficulties. In the soft drink industry, this seems to have worked to the benefit of aspartame.
Intensity of Rivalry. Buyers under intense competitive pressure and searching for competitive ad-vantage will tend to substitute more quickly to gain a given advantage than those that are not.
Generic Strategy. The RVP of a substitute will have different significance depending on the com-petitive advantage that industrial, commercial, or institutional buyers are seeking or the value of time and particular performance needs of the household buyer. A substitute that offers a cost saving will tend to be of more interest to a cost leader than a differentiator, for example.
Many of these factors that shape the buyer's propensity to substitute will be a function of the particular decision maker who is involved in the purchase decision.
Porter, Michael E.. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (p. 278-289). Free Press. Kindle Edition.
Reference:
LO 2, AC 2.2