Launch Deadlock: Quality Gate, Cost Target, and Buffer Inventory
MedLine Devices is launching a single-use surgical stapler in 10 weeks. Supply management has one qualified resin supplier, but Quality's supplier-qualification protocol requires 12 weeks for a new molding supplier because of biocompatibility testing. Operations wants eight weeks of finished-goods buffer (about 22,000 units) to protect the launch, which Finance opposes: carrying cost at 18% annual and obsolescence risk if the design changes after clinical feedback. Finance has set a launch COGS target of $42.00 per unit; the current supplier quote is $46.50, and the supplier says it can reach $42 only at 250,000 annual volume, versus the launch forecast of 160,000. The launch team meets weekly, but each function reports a different 'critical path.' The VP of Supply Management asks you to unblock the launch without breaching quality requirements or the cost target.
1. What is the most likely root cause of the cross-functional deadlock, and what governance mechanism would you put in place? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis. The deadlock is not a communication problem; it is a decision-rights and objective-alignment problem. Quality is enforcing a 12-week biocompatibility gate that protects patients and regulatory approval. Operations is hedging launch service with eight weeks of finished goods. Finance is holding a point cost target of $42 that was derived at 250,000 units while the launch forecast is 160,000. Each function's 'critical path' reflects its own constraint, and no one has converted the constraints into a single tradeoff model. The weekly meeting reproduces the conflict because it has no decision authority and no pre-agreed rules.
Governance. Install a launch control tower with one accountable leader (not a committee), a decision log, and a shared scorecard. Pre-agree three tradeoff rules: (1) quality and regulatory gates are non-negotiable; (2) the cost target is evaluated in volume bands, not at a point; (3) buffer is sized to the specific risk window, not by function preference. Add a standing constraint review that names the binding constraint each week - qualification timeline, supplier capacity, or cash. This converts a political negotiation into a managed constraint. The leader must have authority to trade cost, time, and risk within those rules.
2. Given the 10-week launch, 12-week qualification, and 8-week buffer request, what do you recommend on supplier qualification and buffer inventory? Quantify the tradeoff where possible.
Read the worked answer
Separate the clocks. The launch clock is 10 weeks; the qualification clock is 12 weeks. Compressing biocompatibility testing is not a defensible trade. Launch on the already-qualified supplier and start a parallel qualification of a second molder immediately, targeting completion 4–6 weeks after launch. That creates a dual-source option without delaying revenue.
Resize the buffer. Eight weeks at roughly 2,750 units/week is about 22,000 units, or $1.02M of inventory at $46.50; carrying at 18% is about $184k a year before obsolescence. The actual qualification gap is only two weeks after launch, plus ramp variability. A three-week finished-goods buffer (about 8,250 units) costs roughly $383k of inventory and $69k a year to carry - about $115k less - and, more importantly, cuts obsolescence exposure if clinical feedback changes the design. Protect the launch with supplier-held consignment of long-lead resin and a capacity reservation instead of a blanket finished-goods buffer.
Why. Buffer should cover the risk window, not an arbitrary policy. This answer preserves the quality gate, reduces cash, and still protects service.
3. How would you structure the cost negotiation with the supplier to close the $4.50 gap without damaging the relationship?
Read the worked answer
Do not buy volume you do not have. A 250,000-unit commitment against a 160,000 forecast creates a 90,000-unit take-or-pay liability. That is a finance risk disguised as a price concession. Instead, propose a tiered price schedule with a 12-month true-up and a collaborative cost-reduction roadmap.
Open the $4.50. Ask for a cost breakdown by resin, molding cycle, scrap, packaging, overhead, and margin. Target the largest controllable drivers: resin grade standardization, cavitation, scrap rate, and packaging. Offer low-cost value: a three-year term, forecast visibility, preferred-supplier status, early design involvement, and prompt-payment terms. Set a gain-share so savings above target are split.
Protect the relationship. Frame the negotiation as closing a volume-band gap, not as rejecting the supplier's price. If the supplier cannot reach $42 at launch volume, recommend Finance adopt a volume-band target or a launch premium with a glide path. The $42 target was set at 250,000 units; treating it as a launch target creates a false failure and encourages a bad contract.