Improving data quality and supplier engagement through our MIO process
The way we monitor and evaluate our data is important – and this includes our Management Information Online (MIO) process, which we use to collect spend data from our suppliers.
In recent years we have improved the way we collect and manage this data, creating a clear process from framework launch through to submission.
Keith Chikaviro, a Technical Support Officer in our NHS Supply Chain: Facilities and Office Solutions technical team, takes us through the process.
“I first started looking at our Management Information Online (MIO) processes three years ago, and I immediately identified some opportunities for improvement.
“Supplier submissions were often late, inconsistent, or difficult to work with. It was clear our procurement teams needed better data. It created challenges not just for Technical Services, but for category managers trying to plan, track performance and make informed decisions.
“My focus became straightforward: ‘How can we engineer a repeatable process that removes the shared friction for everyone involved?’
Starting with the basics
“The first step was to properly understand the problem. Using a structured approach to define, measure and analyse the issues, I worked with colleagues and suppliers to pin down where things were going wrong. A recurring theme was inconsistency – different suppliers had different interpretations of what should be submitted, and when.
“There were also practical challenges. In some cases, we were receiving the wrong data entirely, such as orders that had not been placed with our frameworks. In others, onboarding was happening too late, meaning suppliers didn’t have the guidance they needed from the outset. In reality, that lack of clarity made it harder for everyone to consistently engage with the process, underpinning the quality and completeness of the same information we relied on.
Building a clearer process
“From there, the priority was to turn the reactive work from different stakeholders into an auditable process in place that worked operationally.
“We mapped the full journey: from framework launch and supplier onboarding, through to data submission, monitoring and escalation where needed. This helped define clear ownership at each stage and ensured we were contacting the right people at the right time, for the right reason.
“A key part of this was improving onboarding. Instead of creating more administration, we sought to get involved earlier and by providing clearer guidance to suppliers, we were able to set expectations from the beginning — what good looks like, what needs to be submitted, and who to speak to about how the process works.
“We heavily invested in standardising supporting tools, including data quality templates and onboarding logs, designed to give suppliers a consistent reference point and reduce confusion.
Moving to monthly reporting
“One of the most significant changes was shifting from quarterly to monthly reporting. This was a deliberate decision. Monthly reporting gives us much better visibility — it allows us to identify issues early and work with suppliers to resolve them before they escalate. It also helps ensure the data we report is more accurate and up to date.
“Alongside this, we introduced a clear reporting cycle, supported by automated reminders and defined escalation points. Suppliers receive regular prompts ahead of submission deadlines, followed by manual follow-ups and escalation if needed. This consistency has been key to creating confidence in the integrity of the process, internally and externally.
Supporting suppliers, not just chasing them
“While it’s important to have structure, it’s just as important to bring suppliers with us. One of the biggest shifts has been in how we engage. Rather than simply chasing submissions, the focus is on understanding where suppliers are, identifying any barriers, and helping them meet the requirements.
“That might mean identifying the right contact within an organisation, resolving technical issues, or simply making sure expectations are clear.
“We’ve also been careful not to overload suppliers. For example, reviewing how and when automated reminders are sent has helped reduce the risk of disengagement, ensuring communications remain effective rather than overwhelming.
Demonstrating the impact
“Average submission delays have reduced significantly. The Average Days Late (including missing as Late) is a confidence measure highlighting how Technical Services quietly transforms fragmented supplier data into trusted organisation information. Since introducing these changes, we’ve seen a clear improvement, with that measure reducing from over 150 days pre-process down to approximately 20 days.
“At the same time, the quality of data has improved – faster submission cycles promote more accurate and complete submissions coming through first time.
“Better data means better visibility of spend, more accurate reporting into our wider NHS eco-systems, and ultimately stronger confidence in the decisions that depend on that data.
“By having more conversations, more collaboration, and a clearer shared understanding of the process, the removed shared friction creates shared wins for all our stakeholders.
A shared responsibility
“The thing I’m most proud of is that these improvements have come through collaboration and a concerted effort from different stakeholders to make this process simple, consistent and transparent.
“By aligning Technical Services, Helpdesk Team, procurement teams and suppliers, we have made it easier for everyone to contribute to a process that benefits the wider NHS.”