Symmetry Gauge
Supplier Performance
Quarterly business reviews with data, not anecdotes.
The problem
The supplier review is an opinion contest. The data that would settle it (training currency, compliance posture, delivery against milestones) is scattered across systems the supplier manager cannot see.
What you get
- A supplier directory with lifecycle status (onboarding, active, suspended, offboarded)
- Onboarding checklists wired to real requirements: a supplier activates when its Edge training path and Guard compliance checklist are green, with an audited override when leadership decides to proceed anyway
- Engagements: contracts and task orders with deliverables tracked against status and linked program milestones
- Weighted scorecards across delivery, quality, compliance, documentation, and training, with editable categories and weights
- Automatic score feeds from the suite: training currency from Edge, compliance posture from Guard, milestone performance from Horizon, with manual entry offered whenever a feed is unavailable
- Scorecard periods with a lifecycle (draft, scored, shared, closed) and six-period trend views
- QBR packets that assemble themselves: scorecard, deliverables versus milestones, open improvement actions, and the feedback thread, exportable as PDF
- Improvement actions with owners, due dates, aging, and mandatory closure notes
- Supplier-facing access done right: external points of contact log in and see exactly their supplier’s shared data, enforced in the data layer, not just the interface
Connected by design
Gauge invents nothing. It reads facts the rest of the suite already owns and turns them into a defensible review. When the scorecard says training is lapsed, that is Edge’s number, on the record.
Proof point
Supplier access is scoped where the data lives, not hidden in the interface. In the demo, ask to see two supplier logins side by side. Each sees its packet and nothing else.
See it on your program
See a QBR packet assemble itself from live suite data.