Assessing small manufacturers’ readiness to supply the defence sector

What is shaping defence

Defence organisations work with suppliers, veterans and the public on sensitive topics. Every engagement in this sector is handled under strict confidentiality and clearance requirements.

• Indigenous manufacturing is building a new supplier base
• Veteran welfare and resettlement need better evidence
• Public perception supports recruitment

An industry development body, working in Uttar Pradesh & Tamil Nadu industrial corridors. Client identity is withheld to protect confidentiality.

Organisation

An industry development body

Sector

Defence

Team engaged

Market Research

Services

Business panel, Quantitative research, Research consultancy

The body wanted more small manufacturers to participate in defence supply chains but did not know their capabilities, certifications or the barriers they faced.

• Deliver on the brief: assessing small manufacturers’ readiness to supply the defence sector.
• Understand the views, needs and behaviour of manufacturers.
• Measure how widespread each pattern is, and explain the reasons behind it.
• Give the client evidence it can act on within 9 weeks.

The work focused on 400 manufacturers.

• manufacturers400

Audiences we typically reach in defence

Defence suppliers and MSMEsVeterans and familiesServing personnel (where permitted)Young people considering careersThe general public

Coverage: Uttar Pradesh & Tamil Nadu industrial corridors. Market: India.

• India

A mixed-method design: structured research measured how widespread each pattern was, and qualitative conversations explained why.

1. 1Brief
2. 2MSME survey
3. 3Capability interviews
4. 4Insight

We surveyed manufacturers about capabilities, quality certifications, registration status and experience with procurement processes, and interviewed owners about barriers in depth.

Business panelQuantitative researchResearch consultancy

manufacturers

400

• Business respondents were screened on role, company size and involvement in the decision before being invited.
• Online respondents were drawn from verified panel members who matched the screening criteria, with quotas on key profile attributes.
• Qualitative participants were recruited purposively to cover the full range of experiences that mattered, rather than for statistical representation.

interviews

30

• The online survey was mobile-friendly and offered in respondents' languages.
• Interviews and discussions were led by experienced moderators using a guide agreed with the client.

• Digital fingerprinting and duplicate checks
• Attention, speed and straight-lining checks
• Review of open-ended answers
• Recordings and transcripts for every session
• Re-screening of qualitative recruits
• Logic and range checks on the final data
• Work carried out under our ISO 20252 quality procedures

• Cross-tabulation by key groups and locations
• Significance testing on the differences that mattered
• Thematic coding of interviews and discussions
• Journey and decision mapping

• Quality certification costs and unfamiliarity with procurement processes were the main barriers.

Many capable firms were held back by process knowledge rather than technical ability.

• Build on the core insight: many capable firms were held back by process knowledge rather than technical ability.
• Focus effort where the evidence was strongest: quality certification costs and unfamiliarity with procurement processes were the main barriers.
• Re-measure after the changes to confirm the effect.

• The body launched certification support and procurement awareness workshops.

What changed in the business as a result of the work. Impact is described qualitatively.

• Insight report and management presentation
• Cleaned data file and data tables

• Repeat the measure after changes are in place to track progress.
• A natural follow-on question: where can workforce programmes improve?