PD1/July 2016

Professional diploma in procurement and supply

Leadership in procurement and supply

Date

Wednesday 20 July 2016

Time

Start 09:30

End 12:30 Duration 3 hours

QUESTION PAPER
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES
This examination has FOUR compulsory questions worth 25 marks each.
1. Do not open this question paper until instructed by the invigilator.
2. All answers must be written in the answer booklet provided.
3. All rough work and notes should be written in the answer booklet.

QP04

You are advised to allow 20 minutes to read carefully and analyse the information in the case study
before attempting to answer the questions.
CASE STUDY AUTO-ELECTRICON LTD
Auto-Electricon Ltd (AEL) is a large electrical component supplier, primarily to the European and North American
automotive industry. A customer, JTG, accounts for 40% of its turnover. On January 5th Jay Simmons, AELs
Supply Chain Director, was called to see the managing director. A number of intermittent breakdowns had
occurred across JTGs vehicle range and JTG was discussing the potential causes with its suppliers.
The managing director of AEL tasked Jay with investigating the issue and working with JTG until it was
resolved. Jay had a consultative and democratic leadership style and had achieved good results previously
with this approach. Jay also knew that a clear and comprehensive communication plan would be essential
to the success of the task.
Jay decided to assemble a project team of colleagues and suppliers to take to JTG for an investigatory
meeting. The team included representatives from AELs Research and Development, Assembly, Software
Development Departments, and engineers from two suppliers. Jay had worked with few of this team
previously and recognised the need to bring the team together with a shared purpose.
On January 7th the team met prior to visiting JTG to discuss the position. Jay chaired the meeting. AELs
suppliers were adamant that the components they supplied were to the required specification and had met
all the quality assurance tests.
AELs Research and Development Department expressed concern that some components could have
been fitted incorrectly by JTG and that the initial specification from JTG could have been incorrect. AELs
Assembly team also identified an anomaly in the process data, but thought that this was unlikely to cause
an issue. Software Development felt that interference from other systems on manufactured vehicles could
be affecting AEL components.
The team disagreed strongly about the potential issues and Jay was concerned that this disagreement
would seem negative to JTG at the planned meeting. Jay also recognised that, if JTGs reputation was badly
hit, then this would affect AELs sales, irrespective of fault.
On January 9th an article within the press highlighted concerns with JTGs vehicles and possibilities of
recalls across Europe. This immediately caused a flood of e-mails within AEL and from its suppliers. Some of
AELs other customers had also started to contact them, worried that there could be a wider issue.
Jay was concerned about the potential response from North American customers and other key
stakeholders. The managing director suggested that AEL should wait for direction from JTG before
responding to any queries.
The meeting with JTG was set for January 12th. In attendance would be the chief executive officer of JTG,
its procurement director, senior managers from other suppliers, the AEL team and the group managing
director for JTGs parent company. A unified approach would be required from AELs team and Jay wished to
influence the direction of key decisions around handling this situation.
At the meeting, two of AELs components were identified as potentially being at fault and requiring further
testing. Jay advised JTG that AEL would carry out rigorous testing of all stock, would audit its supply chain
for anomalies, and identify alternative components. In the event of issues being identified, AEL would
report back within one week with findings and a recovery plan as required. This exercise would be a
massive amount of work to complete within the timescale and would require the full application of the
team. This situation was critical and Jay recognised that effective delegation would be key to achieving a
successful outcome.
Page 4 of 8

PD1 Exam Questions July 2016

QUESTIONS
These questions relate to the case study and should be answered in the context of the information
provided. You are advised to spend 40 minutes on each question.
Q1 The case study states that Jay has a consultative and democratic leadership style.

Outline, using appropriate theory, the characteristics of this approach to leadership, and evaluate
whether this style of leadership is appropriate for the situation that AEL faces, as described in the
case study.
(25 marks)

Q2 (a) Identify FOUR stakeholders with whom Jay must engage, analysing for each stakeholder their
power, interest and their likely objectives.
(16 marks)
(b)
The issues, described in the case study, have caused a flood of e-mails both internally and with
AELs customers.
Explain how Jay could use a range of electronic communications as part of a communications
plan to take control of the current situation.
(9 marks)
Q3 (a) Explain each of the following influencing tactics and evaluate its potential use by Jay as an
approach for exerting influence in the situation described in the case study.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Rational persuasion
Inspirational appeal
Exchange
Pressure.

(20 marks)

(b)
The managing director of AEL has nominated Jay for the important role of leading the team to
investigate the quality problems described in the case study and working with JTG to resolve
them.
Outline ONE source of power that Jay will possess as a result of his nomination and
appointment.
Q4 (a)

(5 marks)

The case study states that the team disagreed strongly about the potential issues.

Critically assess the potential conflict handling styles that Jay could use to resolve this situation.

(16 marks)
(b)
Based on the difficult situations and conflicts described in the case study, explain what a
positive win-win outcome could be for AEL and its customer JTG.
(9 marks)

END OF QUESTION PAPER

Page 5 of 8

PD1 Exam Questions July 2016

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO:

CIPS ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT CENTRE
c/o LINNEY DIRECT, A7 GOODS IN
BELLAMY ROAD, MANSFIELD
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG18 4LN
UNITED KINGDOM
TEL: +44(0) 845 880 1188
FAX: +44(0) 845 880 1187
www.cips.org

Page 8 of 8

PD1 Exam Questions July 2016