A VSR report lands on your desk. Score: 82 per cent. And then? You file it in a folder, forward it to the supplier, and three months later a new report arrives. The question nobody answers: what did that 82 per cent mean for the agreement in your contract? Was the SLA standard met? Is there an action attached to it? Does it count towards next year’s renewal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem is not the measurement. The problem is that your VSR and DKS measurements sit apart from your contract. The score lives on an island, the SLA agreement lives in another system. As long as those two stay separate, a quality measurement is a figure without consequence. This article is about linking VSR and DKS measurements to your contract, so that quality data becomes management information instead of a stand-alone score. A deeper look at our earlier piece on why Excel can no longer handle facility contract management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The confusion often starts with the difference between the two measurement streams. DKS (daily quality control) is operational and coaching in nature. You measure daily or ad hoc, usually internally or together with the supplier, to adjust immediately. DKS is meant to improve the process, not to hold anyone to account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
VSR-KMS is something else. This standardised measurement under NEN 2075 is objective and periodic, typically two to four times a year. Its purpose is explicitly contractual: to establish whether the supplier meets the agreed quality. VSR expressly names DKS as an internal instrument. VSR-KMS is the measurement you can rely on in a supplier conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This distinction is not semantics. If you want to raise disappointing quality contractually, a DKS score will not hold up. You need a standardised VSR measurement to support the test against the SLA standard. Anyone who mixes up the two streams ends up having the wrong conversation with the wrong figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Take an FM manager at a care organisation with 12 sites. The cleaning supplier delivers a VSR report each quarter. The contract manager keeps the SLA in a separate system. The measurements arrive by email, end up in a shared folder and get a quick glance at best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a complaint comes in about site 7, the searching begins. Was the standard structurally missed there? That means placing four separate reports side by side, comparing scores by hand and hoping you have the right version. Meanwhile someone retypes quality data into Excel, version differences appear, and people argue about which score actually counts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the island problem. Everyone looks at a different truth:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As long as those three live in separate systems, a measurement stays a figure without consequence. That is double work, and it produces no control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A measurement score only becomes management information once you close the full chain. That chain looks like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In most organisations it stops at step one. The report comes in and the chain stalls. The gain is not in an even stricter standard, but in automatically linking the score to the agreement. The moment a VSR measurement drops below the agreed threshold, there should be an action attached that someone actually picks up. Without that link, quality data remains an archive document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A measurement is only as strong as the agreements around it. If you want to use a score contractually, you set out in advance how the measuring is done. This part is missing from almost all existing content, yet it is exactly what determines whether you win or lose a supplier conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you do not record this, every conversation gets bogged down in a debate about the method instead of the quality. A supplier who knows that measuring happens twice a year against fixed criteria will manage to that as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The solution does not start with a better measurement report, but with a single place where measurement and contract come together. In the contract dashboard<\/a>, quality data becomes one of the measurement streams alongside indexation, SLA monitoring and open actions. A VSR or DKS score no longer stands alone, but sits next to the KPI it belongs to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GRIP deliberately treats quality management as an addition to the contract dashboard, not as a separate product. The measurement is the means, the contract agreement the goal. Organisations that link these save an average of 50 per cent per quality check and 30 per cent on contract administration with the DKS functionality<\/a>, provided the measurement process is set up well. GRIP is certified to ISO 9001 and ISO 27001, which matters if you also want to record quality data in a demonstrable and secure way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With all measurements in one place, you see the trend across quarters, build a supplier scorecard over several years and support a renewal decision with facts. And most importantly: the client, the supplier and the adviser all look at the same data. No more three truths, but one shared reality in which the measurement, the agreement and the follow-up come together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n DKS is a daily, coaching quality check for internal use to adjust the cleaning process. VSR-KMS is a standardised measurement under NEN 2075, typically two to four times a year, meant to objectively establish whether the supplier meets the contractual quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n DKS is intended to be internal and coaching, so it holds up poorly as contractual evidence. If you want to make disappointing quality stick, you use a standardised VSR-KMS measurement under NEN 2075. That is objective and can be tested against the SLA standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You test the score against the SLA threshold agreed in advance. If the score drops below it, an open action or escalation should automatically follow, with recorded follow-up. In a contract dashboard that test happens in one place instead of across separate systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Record the measurement method (VSR-KMS under NEN 2075), the frequency, the sample size, the assessment criteria and the threshold value per KPI. Also arrange the re-measurement moments and the consequence if a re-measurement fails again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If measurements sit in one system and SLA agreements in another, you have to retype and compare scores by hand. That creates version differences, arguments about which score counts and hours of searching when a complaint comes in. One shared place prevents that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Build a supplier scorecard with the measurement scores across several quarters and years. That way you see the trend and the follow-up of earlier deviations, and you can objectively support why a contract is renewed or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFrequently asked questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the difference between DKS and VSR-KMS?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Can I use a DKS score in a supplier conversation?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How do I link a measurement score to a contractual KPI?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What should I record contractually about quality measurements?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why does separating measurement and contract management lead to double work?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How do I support a renewal decision with quality data?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
See how GRIP solves this<\/h2>\n\n\n\n