Skills

Conduct a Supply Chain Audit

10 weeks · 0 milestones

Map the end-to-end supply chain for a real product or service — tracing materials, suppliers, logistics, and distribution — and identify at least three specific vulnerabilities or inefficiencies with supporting evidence. The audit must be grounded in real data from real suppliers or operators, and at least one supply-chain participant must be interviewed. Proof is the audit document plus documentation of the interview(s), confirming the supply chain characterisation is accurate rather than desk research alone.

Part of: Business & Management · Proves for: UG, PG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Map a Real Supply Chain End-to-End

2–3 weeks

Select a real company and product category (e.g., a food manufacturer's fresh produce supply chain, a retailer's electronics sourcing). Map the supply chain from raw material extraction through to end customer delivery — identifying all major tiers of suppliers, logistics nodes, and handoff points. Produce a visual supply chain map and a written description of each stage.

Proof required

Submit a supply chain map (diagram or flowchart) plus a written stage-by-stage description (minimum 600 words) naming the real company and product category. The map must show at least four distinct stages and identify where geographic risks, supplier dependencies, or handoff delays occur. Sources for supplier and logistics information must be cited (public filings, company sustainability reports, or industry databases).

What gets checked

Supply chain map identifies specific named countries or regions for each sourcing stage — not generic 'overseas suppliers'
At least two real risk points are identified with evidence of why they are risks (e.g., single-source dependency, geographic concentration, regulatory exposure)
Written description uses correct supply chain terminology: tier 1/2 suppliers, lead time, safety stock, incoterms

Common mistakes

Choosing a product with no public supply chain information — fashion and food companies publish more than you'd expect; start with sustainability reports
Map stays at the conceptual level (Supplier → Factory → Distribution → Customer) without naming actual nodes

Resources

What a verifier looks for

You are assessing a supply chain audit conducted on a real named company. Ask the submitter to name their top three information sources — supply chain maps built from secondary sources should be traceable to real company disclosures.
Challenge: 'What would happen to this supply chain if the country you identified as high-risk introduced a 25% export tariff?' A credible analyst should be able to reason through the second-order effects.
The audit passes if the supply chain map is specific and grounded in evidence, and the submitter can reason about disruption scenarios without consulting notes during your Q&A.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Identify Bottlenecks and Design Improvement

2–3 weeks

Analyse the mapped supply chain for inefficiencies, risks, and cost leakage. Use at least one formal analysis method (e.g., Theory of Constraints bottleneck analysis, value stream mapping, or risk matrix). Identify the single most significant bottleneck or risk and design a concrete improvement: what would change, what it would cost, and what benefit it would produce.

Proof required

Submit an audit report (minimum 800 words) including: (a) analysis of at least three inefficiencies or risks identified in your map, (b) a documented bottleneck analysis using a named method, (c) a specific improvement proposal with estimated cost, timeline, and expected benefit, and (d) a risk register for the proposed change. One professional with supply chain or operations experience must review the improvement proposal and provide written feedback.

What gets checked

Bottleneck analysis names the specific constraint and quantifies its impact where data is available (even estimates with stated assumptions)
Improvement proposal is operationally specific — 'move to dual sourcing for component X with Supplier B as backup' not 'diversify suppliers'
Written reviewer feedback is substantive (minimum 100 words) and not purely positive — it must identify at least one assumption to test or risk to consider

Common mistakes

Audit identifies only obvious inefficiencies already mentioned in the company's own reports without adding analysis
Improvement proposal recommends a solution without addressing implementation complexity or transition risk

Powstik Guide

An 800-word audit naming three problems and fixes.

Steps

Map the flow end to end.
Find the three biggest bottlenecks or risks.
Back each with data.
Propose a fix for each.

Template

| Problem | Evidence | Impact | Proposed fix |
|---------|----------|--------|--------------|

What gets sent back

Under 800 words.
Claims without sources.
No clear recommendation.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

You are an operations or supply chain professional reviewing an improvement proposal. Read the proposal before giving feedback — this is not a pass/fail judgment; your role is to stress-test the reasoning.
Ask: 'What would you measure in month one to know if this improvement is working?' A credible proposal should have leading indicators, not just outcome metrics.
Your written feedback should note at least one implementation challenge the submitter did not address. Sign and date your feedback so it can be verified.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Audit Findings and Defend Recommendations

1 week

Present your complete supply chain audit and improvement proposal to at least two people, including the reviewer from the previous milestone. The presentation should be 20–30 minutes and include Q&A. Prepare to defend your bottleneck identification methodology and your improvement proposal's cost-benefit assumptions under challenge.

Proof required

Submit: (a) the final audit presentation (PDF or slides), (b) an attendance record with names and dates, (c) a written reflection (minimum 300 words) on the most challenging question raised and how your analysis would change in response. At least one attendee must confirm the session was live (not pre-recorded) and that the Q&A was adversarial.

What gets checked

Reflection identifies a specific gap the Q&A revealed — not 'I learned to prepare better' but 'The reviewer pointed out I assumed lead times were stable; I would now add a sensitivity analysis'
Presentation balances evidence-based analysis with practical recommendation — not purely academic
At least one attendee has operational or supply chain experience and this is noted in the attendance record

Common mistakes

Reflection is generic — does not address specific challenges raised in the Q&A
Presentation omits the cost-benefit case for the improvement recommendation

Powstik Guide

A presented audit, with questions and your answers.

Steps

Present to people who run the chain.
Record who attended.
Log every question asked.
Note which fixes were accepted.

Template

Date:        Attendees:
| Question | Asked by | My answer |
|----------|----------|-----------|
Fixes accepted:

What gets sent back

No attendance record.
Questions not logged.
Presented to classmates only.

Resources

Foundationstart here

What a verifier looks for

Attend the live presentation. Your Q&A role is to challenge at least one financial assumption and one operational assumption. Ask questions you genuinely don't know the answer to — not questions designed to confirm what the submitter already said.
Confirm in writing (email or message) that you attended, that the session was live, and that you asked questions that were not pre-shared. The submitter needs this confirmation as part of their proof.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Operations Management Chops →MBA Core Competencies →Business Administration 7: Operations and information systems →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Map a Real Supply Chain End-to-End

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Supply chain map identifies specific named countries or regions for each sourcing stage — not generic 'overseas suppliers'
At least two real risk points are identified with evidence of why they are risks (e.g., single-source dependency, geographic concentration, regulatory exposure)
Written description uses correct supply chain terminology: tier 1/2 suppliers, lead time, safety stock, incoterms

Common mistakes

Choosing a product with no public supply chain information — fashion and food companies publish more than you'd expect; start with sustainability reports
Map stays at the conceptual level (Supplier → Factory → Distribution → Customer) without naming actual nodes

Resources

What a verifier looks for

You are assessing a supply chain audit conducted on a real named company. Ask the submitter to name their top three information sources — supply chain maps built from secondary sources should be traceable to real company disclosures.
Challenge: 'What would happen to this supply chain if the country you identified as high-risk introduced a 25% export tariff?' A credible analyst should be able to reason through the second-order effects.
The audit passes if the supply chain map is specific and grounded in evidence, and the submitter can reason about disruption scenarios without consulting notes during your Q&A.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Identify Bottlenecks and Design Improvement

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Bottleneck analysis names the specific constraint and quantifies its impact where data is available (even estimates with stated assumptions)
Improvement proposal is operationally specific — 'move to dual sourcing for component X with Supplier B as backup' not 'diversify suppliers'
Written reviewer feedback is substantive (minimum 100 words) and not purely positive — it must identify at least one assumption to test or risk to consider

Common mistakes

Audit identifies only obvious inefficiencies already mentioned in the company's own reports without adding analysis
Improvement proposal recommends a solution without addressing implementation complexity or transition risk

Powstik Guide

An 800-word audit naming three problems and fixes.

Steps

Map the flow end to end.
Find the three biggest bottlenecks or risks.
Back each with data.
Propose a fix for each.

Template

| Problem | Evidence | Impact | Proposed fix |
|---------|----------|--------|--------------|

What gets sent back

Under 800 words.
Claims without sources.
No clear recommendation.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

You are an operations or supply chain professional reviewing an improvement proposal. Read the proposal before giving feedback — this is not a pass/fail judgment; your role is to stress-test the reasoning.
Ask: 'What would you measure in month one to know if this improvement is working?' A credible proposal should have leading indicators, not just outcome metrics.
Your written feedback should note at least one implementation challenge the submitter did not address. Sign and date your feedback so it can be verified.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Audit Findings and Defend Recommendations

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reflection identifies a specific gap the Q&A revealed — not 'I learned to prepare better' but 'The reviewer pointed out I assumed lead times were stable; I would now add a sensitivity analysis'
Presentation balances evidence-based analysis with practical recommendation — not purely academic
At least one attendee has operational or supply chain experience and this is noted in the attendance record

Common mistakes

Reflection is generic — does not address specific challenges raised in the Q&A
Presentation omits the cost-benefit case for the improvement recommendation

Powstik Guide

A presented audit, with questions and your answers.

Steps

Present to people who run the chain.
Record who attended.
Log every question asked.
Note which fixes were accepted.

Template

Date:        Attendees:
| Question | Asked by | My answer |
|----------|----------|-----------|
Fixes accepted:

What gets sent back

No attendance record.
Questions not logged.
Presented to classmates only.

Resources

Foundationstart here

What a verifier looks for

Attend the live presentation. Your Q&A role is to challenge at least one financial assumption and one operational assumption. Ask questions you genuinely don't know the answer to — not questions designed to confirm what the submitter already said.
Confirm in writing (email or message) that you attended, that the session was live, and that you asked questions that were not pre-shared. The submitter needs this confirmation as part of their proof.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.