Free Practice Questions for CIPS L5M6 Exam

This is a bottleneck item. According to the Kraljic Matrix, bottleneck items are characterized by high supply risk and low profit impact, which makes them difficult to source. Holding contingency stock is a recommended strategy for such items.

Kaizen translates to “continuous improvement” in Japanese. It is a philosophy that encourages making small, incremental changes that collectively lead to significant performance enhancements over time. Within procurement and category management, Kaizen focuses on ongoing collaboration with suppliers to identify ways to reduce waste, improve quality, and optimise processes. Unlike one-off cost-reduction initiatives, Kaizen is embedded in the organisational culture and requires engagement from all levels of the supply chain. For example, small adjustments in packaging design might reduce material use, leading to cost savings and environmental benefits. This approach fosters long-term supplier partnerships and supports innovation. In competitive markets, organisations that adopt Kaizen are more resilient and adaptable, making it a key concept for category managers to understand.

Buyer strength increases when order volumes are large, as this gives leverage in negotiations and can improve pricing and terms. The other options do not necessarily strengthen buyer power.

Supplier 1 → Price Acceptance + Bottleneck

Supplier 1 is the sole supplier of a critical item, and XYZ has confirmed through market research that there are no substitutes available. This places Supplier 1 in the Bottleneck quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, which is defined by high supply risk but low profit impact (or limited ability to influence price). In bottleneck situations, buyers have limited leverage, making them price takers rather than price setters. That’s why the appropriate cost approach here is Price Acceptance—XYZ must accept the price dictated by the supplier because of the absence of alternatives. Procurement’s role becomes risk mitigation, ensuring continuity of supply rather than focusing on negotiation power. The recommended strategies include maintaining strong supplier relationships, holding safety stock, and monitoring supply risks. Price cannot be influenced significantly, so procurement must accept the terms, reflecting a bottleneck scenario.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–83, 97–100 – Cost ApproachesKraljic Matrix)

Supplier 2 → Cost Down + Leverage

Supplier 2 provides items that, while not purchased in large volumes, have a high impact on profit and carry a low supply risk. These characteristics fit into the Leverage quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix: high profit impact, low risk. In such cases, buyers hold strong bargaining power and can use competition or collaborative cost reduction measures to secure better value. The chosen cost approach here is Cost Down, which involves working with suppliers to systematically reduce costs without reducing value. XYZ’s long-term relationship with Supplier 2, combined with a focus on identifying where costs could be lowered, matches the cost-down philosophy. Examples might include value engineering, supplier process improvements, or volume consolidation. Leverage items are ideal for competitive sourcing, e-auctions, and bulk negotiation. By applying a cost-down approach, XYZ can ensure sustained profitability while keeping supply risk under control.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–81, 97–100 – Cost ManagementLeverage items)

Supplier 3 → Price Management + Non-Critical

Supplier 3 provides indirect goods such as stationery, which have little impact on company profits and are purchased regularly in small quantities. These fit into the Non-Critical quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, which is characterised by low profit impact and low supply risk. In these cases, procurement’s focus should be on administrative efficiency and price management, rather than extensive strategic negotiations. The chosen cost approach here is Price Management, since XYZ meets with the supplier regularly to discuss pricing and bulk discounts. This approach ensures that, although the spend is low-value, the company avoids unnecessary waste or inflated costs. Tools such as catalogues, e-procurement systems, or framework agreements are commonly used in this quadrant to manage spend efficiently. Price management helps free up procurement resources for more strategic categories while still ensuring best value in non-critical areas.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80–82, 97 – Non-critical items and price management)

Supplier 4 → Cost Out + Strategic

Supplier 4 is supplying a one-off capital expenditure item. XYZ has engaged in months of negotiations regarding specifications, and both parties are collaborating to reduce costs before manufacturing begins. This aligns perfectly with the Strategic quadrant of the Kraljic Matrix, where items have high profit impact and high supply risk. Strategic items require strong, long-term partnerships and close supplier collaboration. The appropriate cost approach here is Cost Out, which focuses on eliminating unnecessary costs during the design and specification stages, before production. This proactive approach ensures that efficiency and value are embedded in the product from the outset. Cost-out strategies often involve redesign, engineering collaboration, and innovation to reduce total cost of ownership. In such relationships, trust and partnership are critical, since both buyer and supplier must work together to achieve shared value and risk reduction.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, pp.80, 97–99 – Strategic items and Cost-Out approach)

Survival of the fittest in supplier management means driving competition by focusing heavily on price reduction, with minimal emphasis on building long-term relationships. This approach treats suppliers as interchangeable, encouraging them to compete aggressively for contracts.

It can yield short-term cost savings but risks damaging supplier collaboration, innovation, and resilience. It is suitable for commodities or non-strategic items where price is the dominant factor.

Other approaches differ:

Trust-based or partnership models balance price with collaboration.

No-cost modelling focuses on process transparency.

Strategic alliances prioritise innovation and value creation.

Category Managers must carefully choose when to apply “survival of the fittest” as it may undermine long-term supplier stability if used indiscriminately.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.160 – Supplier relationship models]

A General Ledger [GL] is the central accounting record used by businesses to prepare financial reports. It categorises all financial transactions into cost codes, allowing managers to track expenditure, revenue, assets, and liabilities.

For category managers, the General Ledger provides visibility into spend categories. This information supports spend analysis and helps in mapping organisational costs against suppliers, categories, and business functions. It differs from line item detail by offering a higher-level financial view.

Other options are misleading:

Option A [tenders] relates to e-procurement platforms, not financial records.

Option C [catalogue] refers to item listings, not ledgers.

Option D [supplier lists] relates to approved supplier databases.

By using GL data, procurement can ensure alignment with finance, strengthening compliance, budgeting, and strategic sourcing decisions.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, p.135 – Use of General Ledger in procurement analysis]

A close-up of a questionnaire AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Category 1: Highly innovative, many suppliers with similar products at similar price points

Porter’s Force: Competitive Rivalry – High

STEEPLE Factor: Technological

Explanation (150–200 words):

Category 1 operates in a market that is highly innovative and subject to rapid technological change. Innovation means suppliers are constantly developing new features or solutions, making technology the primary STEEPLE factor. Additionally, because there are many suppliers offering similar products at similar price points, competitive rivalry is intense. Buyers can switch easily, and suppliers must compete aggressively on features, pricing, and differentiation.

This combination of high rivalry and technological change creates both opportunity and risk for Randoxx. On one hand, innovation drives new solutions that can be leveraged; on the other hand, it increases pressure to manage supplier relationships strategically. Randoxx must monitor technological trends closely while maintaining competitive sourcing strategies to manage this highly dynamic category.

(Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide – Porter’s Five Forces, p.112–116; STEEPLED Analysis, p.109)

The first step in A.T. Kearney’s 7 Step Model of Strategic Sourcing is Supplier Portfolio Generation. The model provides a structured approach to sourcing, beginning with an understanding of current spend and supplier landscape before progressing to strategy development and implementation.

The seven steps are:

Profile spend and supply base.

Develop sourcing strategy and cost comparison.

Generate supplier portfolio.

Select implementation path.

Select competitive suppliers.

Integrate operations with suppliers.

Continuously benchmark supply market.

The reason supplier portfolio generation is first is because procurement must identify potential suppliers and the overall supply base structure before choosing strategies or engaging in competitive selection. Skipping this step risks building a strategy without understanding available market options.

Thus, while options C and D are important later in the process, they cannot occur without first mapping the supplier portfolio.

[Ref: CIPS L5M6 Study Guide, Chapter 1.2 – Strategic Sourcing Models, esp. p.31–32]

Industries differ in terms of barriers to entry, which are obstacles that make it difficult for new competitors to enter a market. The restaurant industry has relatively low barriers—it requires less upfront capital, fewer regulatory approvals, and allows easier entry compared to industries such as airlines or pharmaceuticals. In contrast, pharmaceuticals involve stringent legal regulations, high R&D costs, and patents, while airlines require massive capital investment and regulatory compliance. The soft drinks industry, while not as capital-intensive, has strong barriers due to brand loyalty, global supply chains, and marketing costs. For procurement, recognising barriers to entry is important because it affects supply market competitiveness. In industries with low barriers like restaurants, buyer power is generally higher because new suppliers can enter easily. In high-barrier industries, suppliers hold greater power due to limited alternatives. This ties directly into Porter’s Five Forces, which procurement professionals use to evaluate market attractiveness and develop category strategies.