Curious about Actual CIPS Level 4 Diploma in Procurement and Supply (L4M5) Exam Questions?

Correct : A

In 1983, Peter Kraljic devised a means to segment the supplier base in the article in HBR. In this, he argued that supply items should be mapped against two key dimensions: risk and profitability.

Risk relates to the likelihood for an unexpected event in the supply chains to disrupt operations. For instance, in important areas of spend, such as tire suppliers for an automotive are business critical, and should a disruption occur, the auto company is likely itself to face substantial problems.

Profitability describes the impact of a supply item upon the bottom line. For certain areas of spend, such as stationery, supplies have only a negligible effect on profits. In other categories, a single source of supply can make or break a business.

Putting these two dimensions together yields a classic two-by-two matrix.

Source: Peter Kraljic, HBR

- CIPS study guide page 63-73

- What Is The Kraljic Matrix? (forbes.com)

LO 1, AC 1.4

Correct : B, E

The agreement and closing phase is the phase when it is either clear through explicit language, or strongly suggested through non-verbal signals, that TOP is ready to move to agreement. Judging when to close can be difficult and as with phases of the negotiation, experience, observation, practice and reflection will be the best ways to learn here.

In the closing phase, procurement should:

- Watch for closing/buying signals

- Check to ensure all issues have been resolved

- Consider using visual aids to summarise

- Use 'summary close'

- Make a decision to conclude/close

- Seek agreement in principle if TOP does not have the final authority

- Make your own private notes on the final agreement

- Shake hands on the agreement

- Leave the meeting as soon as possible thereafter.

LO 3, AC 3.1

Correct : C

The coercive power comes from the belief that a person can punish others for non-compliance. It can be considered as opposite to reward power, which results from one person's ability to compensate or reward another for compliance.

LO 1, AC 1.3

Correct : C

From a principled point of view, the focus of negotiation is on resolving the issue and not on winning temporary advantage over TOP through exploiting home advantage. From the principled point of view, the location and room layout should not be viewed as a source of tactical advantage and should not be used to try to gain advantage over TOP or unfairly influence them in the meeting room.

From a pragmatic point of view, not all of these elements in the ideal negotiation environment may be feasible, so the host may have to make compromises and explain these to TOP.

From a distributive point of view, the host will seek to create an advantage for themselves either explicitly or more subtly. It is arguable that any advantage gained through intentionally creating an uncomfortable environment to put short-term pressure on TOP is likely to be short-lived as TOP will likely reflect on this later and seek means to get even.

LO 2, AC 2.4

Correct : C

Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person's expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win. Competing will not allow long-term relationship to flourish.

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, the objective is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn't explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position. It is a valid approach when long-term relationships are at stake and it is important to find some common ground on which to base an agreement. Both sides get something but not everything. Therefore, this is the most appropriate for this scenario.

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. In the scenario, both parties want to take the opportunity, then avoiding is not an appropriate solution.

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative---the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person's order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another's point of view. In the scenario, neither party shall concede all of their requirements, it is unnecessary to adopt this approach.

LO 1, AC 1.1