Vendors’ Maturity Assessment Processes Modelling and Automation Based of the Best International Practices


Tokarev V. V.*, Deniskina A. R.**

Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), 4, Volokolamskoe shosse, Moscow, А-80, GSP-3, 125993, Russia



The article considers the issues of modeling and automation of processes and tools for assessing vendors’ maturity based on the best international practices, contributing to possible risks identification at the early stages of contractual relations, their prevention and elimination.

The data on existing both domestic and foreign techniques for vendors’ assessment was systematized. Analysis of the main causes of default on contract commitments by the nuclear industry vendors was performed. Exigencies and expectations of the sectorial quality services, as well as external customers’ requirements were formalized. The article analyses the results of the discrepancies, revealed by the customers while pre-contract and inspection audits, as well as corresponding sectorial legislative, regulatory and other requirements and recommendations. The most important trends for the vendors’ maturity assessment. Based on studying and analysis of the best world practices, a technique for works applicability signs assignment, necessary for meeting the customer’s requirements. As the result, a customer acquired the possibility to draw up a checklist for its specific requirements.

To unify the checklists configuration variants, work types classifier was introduced for manufacturers and contractor/servicing enterprises.

Data analysis results on the existing object revealed that the presence of explanations, describing the mechanism for compliance with the requirements assessment eliminates a possible judgment subjectivity and a risk of cassation from the side of the enterprises under the audit.

The authors developed a checklist form, which should contain a set of the following signs, ensuring the possibilities of its configuring according to the customer’s requirements, introducing the audit evidence and objective calculation of the vendor maturity level (the total score). It should contain also the requirement description, its clarification, systemness, and applicability for the type of work; assessment of the compliance with the requirement; assessment substantiation (records of the audit evidence); the auditee surname, name and patronymic, the date of the assessment performing.

The developed vendors’ maturity model accounts for the difference of the errors elimination costs, occurred at various stages of product manufacturing life cycle.


processes modelling, vendors’ maturity model, checklist, audit automation, quality management


  1. Dickson G.W. An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions, Journal of Purchasing, 1966, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5 – 17.

  2. S. Hossein Cheraghi, Mohammad Dadashzadeh, Muthu Subramanian. Critical Success Factors For Supplier Selection: An Update, Journal of Applied Business Research, 2011, vol. 20, no.2, pp. 91 - 108. DOI: 10.19030/jabr.v20i2.2209

  3. Deniskin Yu.I., Dubrovin A.V., Podkolzin V.G. Trudy MAI, 2017, no. 95, available at:

  4. S. Thiruchelvam, J. Tookey. Evolving Trends of Supplier Selection Criteria and Methods, International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, 2011, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 437 – 454. DOI: 10.15282/ijame.4.2011.6.0036

  5. Tokarev V.V., Letchford L.N., Doroshenko N.V. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva, 2019, no. 8, pp. 42 - 49.

  6. Privalov A.E., Dorozhko I.V., Zakharova E.A., Kopeika A.L. Trudy MAI, 2018, no. 103, available at:

  7. Supplier Selection & Capabilities Assessment (SSCA)-Section 4.1., available at:

  8. Product Performance Detailed Assessment Checklists User Guide, 2014, available at: 4.2.

  9. Sub-tier Supplier Control Management, SCMH Section 4.4.2, 2014, available at: Section 4.4.

  10. Nicoleta Roxana Turcitu. Aalborg University - Department of Business and Management, Master Thesis. Supplier Management at Siemens Wind Power, 2015, 80 p.

  11. Red'ko A.O., Smerchinskaya S.O., Yashina N.P. Trudy MAI, 2016, no. 85, available at:

  12. Klarjic P. Purchasing Must Become Supply Management, Harvard Business Review, 1983, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 109 - 117.

  13. Malykhina M.A. Trudy MAI, 2015, no. 79, available at:

  14. SCM STAR Supplier Information Package, April 2017, available at:

  15. Supplier Quality Manual. Valeo Siemens eAutomotive, SQ 2107 rev 1, available at:

  16. Zakupki i Kvalifikatsiya postavshchikov v Simens, Siemens AG, 2013, available at:

  17. Alstom Thermal Power Supplier Quality Manual POWER-Q-MSM-002 - Revision B - December 2014, available at:

  18. Solov'eva I.A., Solov'ev D.S., Litovka Yu.V., Korobova I.L. Trudy MAI, 2018, no. 98, available at:

  19. ABB Supplier Requirements, 9AKK102949 ABB Supplier Requirements, available at:

  20. ABB Supplier Quality Guidelines. ABB Inc. Robotics N.A., Eighth Edition, November 2012, 3.03.P01.W01 Rev 8, available at:

  21. SCREQ-001 Process Requirements in Developing Excellence, Revision F, Date: October 15, 2010, available at:

  22. SAFRAN GRF-0033 “Requirements Compliance Matrix”, Edition 0, Revision 4, Date of last revision 14/01/2014, available at:

  23. Procedure N GRP-0087 “SAFe - Safran requirements to Supplier”, Index: Issue: 4 - Revision: 1 Date of last revision: 26/06/2013.

  24. Standart organizatsii №302. Otsenochnyi audit postavshchika, utverzhdennyi prikazom General'nogo direktora “OAK-Zakupki”, 05.11.2015, 100 p.

  25. Kondrashin M.A., Arsenov O.Yu., Kozlov I.V. Trudy MAI, 2016, no. 89, available at:

Download — informational site MAI

Copyright © 2000-2022 by MAI