Quarterly Business Reviews: Useful but not SRM

Author: Alan Day, Chairman and Founder

Quarterly Business Reviews (QBRs) have become almost ritualistic in supplier management. Many organisations hold them. Few conduct them well. Fewer still understand their correct role within a broader supplier relationship management (SRM) programme. It’s not unusual to hear procurement leaders confidently state: “We hold QBRs with our suppliers, so our SRM is in place.” This is mistaken.

QBRs serve a purpose. But they are neither sufficient nor synonymous with SRM. They are one activity within a much wider governance system. Confusing the two risks missing the full strategic value that genuine supplier partnerships can offer.

The role QBRs are meant to play

In theory, a QBR is a structured, two-way review between buyer and supplier. Both sides meet to evaluate performance, discuss service levels, address issues, and plan for the next quarter. The conversation should be balanced: the supplier presents its performance and plans, and the buyer provides feedback not only on metrics, but also on the state of the relationship.

Done well, QBRs encourage accountability, forward planning and openness. They allow both parties to step back from daily operations and refocus on the wider partnership. Issues can be addressed before they escalate. Opportunities for efficiency or innovation can be surfaced.

In practice, however, many QBRs become one-sided performance interrogations. The buyer presents a scorecard. The supplier responds to variances. The conversation narrows to service level agreements, delivery failures and corrective actions. Forward-looking collaboration is often absent. Too often, the supplier listens and the buyer talks.

Where QBRs fit in supplier governance

To be effective, QBRs must sit within a structured governance model. At State of Flux, we advise clients to build multi-level frameworks that reflect the strategic importance of each supplier. In a mature model, this typically includes:

1. Operational meetings (weekly or monthly): Focused on short-term execution such as orders, deliveries, inventory and invoicing
2. Functional meetings: Covering technical issues, regulatory compliance, engineering or R&D
3. Commercial meetings: Addressing pricing, contracts, rebates and disputes
4. Innovation forums: Exploring new product ideas or process improvements
5. Quarterly Business Reviews: Tracking KPIs, reviewing relationship health, addressing business risks and aligning short-term priorities
6. Annual joint account planning: Aligning on long-term goals, investments and roadmaps
7. Executive top-to-top meetings: Senior leadership engagement on direction, risks and opportunities

QBRs sit in the middle of this governance model. They provide formal quarterly checkpoints but cannot replace continuous engagement or strategic planning.

Why QBRs are not Supplier Relationship Management

Supplier Relationship Management is not a calendar of meetings. It is a cross-functional business discipline. SRM requires alignment on commercial objectives, relationship health monitoring, shared innovation, governance discipline, capability building and cultural change.

Joint account planning, for example, cannot be squeezed into a QBR. It needs dedicated time, deep commercial discussion, resource alignment and executive sponsorship. These are rarely achieved in a two-hour session.

QBRs also cannot address trust, transparency or behaviour alone. Healthy relationships are not visible in KPIs. Teams can report excellent metrics while frustrations build due to misalignment or poor communication. SRM includes both formal and informal methods to address these dynamics.

Most importantly, SRM demands ongoing engagement. Silence between QBRs is not a sign of stability, it’s a warning signal.

A guide to effective QBRs

If structured well, QBRs can support SRM discipline. To get them right, companies should apply the following principles:

1. Define purpose and scope
   Look beyond operational metrics. Include business risks, supplier development and forward-looking collaboration.
2. Share information in advance
   Distribute KPIs and data ahead of time. Focus the meeting on discussion and decisions, not slides.
3. Make it two-way
   Suppliers should share performance insights, propose innovations and raise risks.
4. Involve the right people
   Ensure the right mix of operational leads, commercial managers, functional experts and executive sponsors.
5. Document and follow up
   End with clear actions, owners and deadlines. Track progress transparently.
6. Link to wider governance
   Feed QBR outcomes into innovation forums, joint planning and senior leadership discussions.

SRM needs culture and clarity

The shortcomings of QBRs reflect a bigger truth: SRM is not just a process, it’s a system of behaviours. Culture matters. Suppliers must be seen as part of the extended enterprise, not just vendors.

But culture alone won’t sustain SRM. Without clear roles and accountability, governance becomes ceremonial. Every function whether procurement, operations, quality, finance, R&D must know its part and have a defined counterpart. In mature programmes, SRM is embedded into job descriptions and org charts are mirrored across both sides.

Governance only works when people are aligned. Incentives must support joint outcomes, not just cost savings. The goal is to treat suppliers as strategic partners, sharing risk and creating value together.

Governance provides the structure. People and clarity make it work.

Is your SRM maturity where it should be?

Take the 2025 SRM Survey to benchmark your supplier relationship approach.
You’ll get a free personalised report showing where your governance stands and where you can drive more value from your suppliers.