| Course | GB525 Global Business Environment |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Location recommendation |
| Length | About 1,160 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB525 Unit 9
Puerto Rico Over Ireland for an Implant Machining Plant: A Unit 9 Location Recommendation and What It Gives Up
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB525: Global Business Environment
Unit 9 Location Recommendation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The manufacturer, its operation and every cost figure are composite and illustrative; the location conditions described and the sources cited are real, and tax and incentive terms should be confirmed with advisers.
The Operation
Wolf River Orthopedic Components, a composite supplier based in Memphis, Tennessee, machines and finishes titanium and cobalt-chrome components for knee and hip implants. It sells to its parent's assembly lines in Tennessee and to two outside device companies, one in the United States and one in Germany. About 75 percent of its volume goes to US customers and 25 percent to the European Union. Demand has outgrown the Memphis plant, and the firm plans a second plant of about [120] employees with five-axis machining, polishing, passivation and cleaning in controlled environments.
Screening the Candidates
Three locations were screened: northern Mexico, Puerto Rico and Ireland. Northern Mexico offered the lowest labor costs but less depth in the precision machining and finishing of implant-grade materials, and the firm's US customers wanted a supplier inside an established medical device cluster. Puerto Rico and Ireland both host large medical device industries and were taken forward.
Exhibit 1: The Factor Matrix
Seven factors were weighted by what the operation needs, and each location was scored from one to five.
Skilled technician and engineer supply (20 percent): Puerto Rico 4, with an experienced device manufacturing workforce and engineering graduates from the island's universities; Ireland 5, with one of Europe's deepest medical device talent pools in the west and south of the country.
Market access (20 percent): Puerto Rico 5, because it lies inside the US customs territory and its plants operate under the same FDA rules as mainland plants; Ireland 3, offering full access to the EU single market but shipments to the United States subject to US import rules and trade policy.
Incentives and tax (15 percent): Puerto Rico 5, with incentive decrees offering reduced income tax rates to eligible manufacturers; Ireland 4, with a 12.5 percent corporate rate for a firm of Wolf River's size.
Freight time to main customers (10 percent): Puerto Rico 5, with short air and sea links to the mainland; Ireland 3.
Labor cost (10 percent): Puerto Rico 4; Ireland 2.
Supplier depth (10 percent): Puerto Rico 4; Ireland 5.
Political and natural hazard risk (15 percent): Puerto Rico 2, given hurricanes and an electric grid that has suffered major outages; Ireland 4.
Weighted scores: Puerto Rico 4.15; Ireland 3.80.
MacCormack et al. (1994) argued that site selection should weigh access to skills and markets alongside cost, rather than treating labor cost as decisive, and the matrix's weights follow that view.
Exhibit 2: Annual Cost Comparison
In composite planning figures at full operation, in millions of dollars:
Labor: Puerto Rico 5.60; Ireland 7.90.
Energy: Puerto Rico 1.90; Ireland 1.30.
Outbound freight: Puerto Rico 0.40; Ireland 0.90.
Backup power and resilience: Puerto Rico 0.35, for on-site generation and fuel storage; Ireland, none needed beyond standard.
Added cost of serving EU customers from Puerto Rico: 0.48, for longer transit, a bonded stock point in Germany and more frequent customer visits.
Customs and trade compliance on transatlantic shipments: Puerto Rico, included above; Ireland 0.75 for shipments to US customers.
Total: Puerto Rico about 8.73; Ireland about 10.85.
Puerto Rico is about $2.1 million a year cheaper in these figures, before tax. The tax difference adds to its advantage, though the size depends on the incentive decree's terms and on how US tax rules treat the earnings of a Puerto Rico subsidiary, which the firm's advisers must confirm.
Puerto Rico wins because three-quarters of the plant's output is bound for US customers; if that share fell to half, Ireland's market access and talent would close most of the gap.
The Recommendation
Build the second plant in Puerto Rico. It keeps most of the output inside the same customs territory and regulatory system as the main customers, costs about $2.1 million a year less to operate in the composite figures, and offers a workforce with deep experience in regulated device manufacturing.
What the Choice Gives Up
Proximity to European customers. The German customer would be served across the Atlantic, with longer lead times and a bonded stock point, at about $480,000 a year. If European sales grow faster than planned, a European site may be needed later.
Ireland's deeper talent pool. Puerto Rico's workforce is experienced, but recruiting senior process engineers for implant-grade finishing may take longer. The firm should plan for some engineers to rotate from Memphis during the plant's first two years.
A more reliable grid. Puerto Rico's grid has suffered prolonged outages after hurricanes and from failures within the system. Backup generation, fuel storage and a hurricane preparedness plan reduce the risk, but they cost about $350,000 a year and cannot remove it entirely. Customers will want to see a business continuity plan, including inventory buffers at Memphis for the most critical components.
A different relationship with the EU regulators. Components sold into the EU must support the customer's conformity under EU medical device rules regardless of where they are made, but an Irish plant would have been closer to the notified bodies and auditors involved.
Ferdows (1997) argued that foreign plants create the most value when their role grows over time, from producing to developing products and serving regional markets. A Puerto Rico plant that begins as a production site for US customers could later add process development, but it is unlikely to become the firm's base for Europe.
Implementation
Site selection should begin with industrial parks that already host device manufacturers, where landlords understand controlled-environment fit-outs and local suppliers of cleaning, sterilization and calibration services are nearby. The firm should negotiate its incentive decree before signing a lease, hire a plant manager with Puerto Rico device experience early, and plan validation of the new lines with its customers so that qualification runs are scheduled before Memphis reaches capacity.
Risks and Triggers for Review
The decision should be revisited if EU customers grow to more than 40 percent of volume, if US trade policy toward EU imports changes in a way that removes Ireland's disadvantage, or if a major outage disrupts production for more than two weeks despite the backup plan. Ghemawat (2001) reminds managers that distance is specific to the industry, and in implant components the distance that matters most is regulatory and customs distance from the customers who buy most of the output.
Conclusion
Puerto Rico is the better location for Wolf River's second plant because most of its output serves US customers, its costs are lower and its workforce knows regulated device manufacturing. The choice gives up European proximity, some engineering depth and grid reliability, and the firm should budget for each.
References
Ferdows, K. (1997). Making the most of foreign factories. Harvard Business Review, 75(2), 73-88.
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137-147.
MacCormack, A. D., Newman, L. J., III, & Rosenfield, D. B. (1994). The new dynamics of global manufacturing site location. Sloan Management Review, 35(4), 69-80.
Reading the GB 525 Unit 9 instructions
In GB525 Unit 9 you recommend a location for an international operation. Describe the operation and screen a longer list to two or three candidates. Build a factor matrix with weights justified by the operation's needs, and score each candidate. Compare costs in a table. Commit to a recommendation, state the assumption it rests on, and price what the choice gives up. Close with implementation steps, risks and the triggers that would cause a review. Expect about six pages with the matrix and cost table as exhibits, citing location research in APA 7. The cost table should use one basis, such as annual cost at full operation, so the figures can be added and compared.
Inside the GB525 Unit 9 example
The paper describes Wolf River's titanium and cobalt-chrome machining and its 75 percent US share. Screening drops northern Mexico. Exhibit 1 weights seven factors and scores both locations, citing MacCormack and colleagues on skills and markets. Exhibit 2 compares labor, energy, freight, backup power and trade compliance costs, and the highlighted sentence names the US share as the deciding assumption. The recommendation commits to Puerto Rico, and a section prices what it gives up, citing Ferdows on the roles of foreign plants. Implementation steps, review triggers such as EU volume above 40 percent, and Ghemawat on industry-specific distance close it.
Reading the GB525 Unit 9 grading rubric
GB525 instructors look for a committed choice backed by weighted factors and costs, with its sacrifices priced. Screening a longer list briefly earns credit. Weights justified before scoring show discipline. A cost table on a common basis supports the matrix. Naming the assumption the choice rests on carries significant weight, because it tells the reader when to revisit it. Pricing each item given up shows honesty about the trade-off. Triggers for review complete the paper. MacCormack and colleagues on site location, Ferdows on foreign factories and Ghemawat on distance are its APA 7 sources. Implementation steps such as negotiating incentives before signing a lease show the recommendation was carried through to what happens next.
Common GB525 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB525 Unit 9 papers end on a weighted score and never commit to a choice. Others recommend a location without saying what it costs the firm to give up the alternative. A common gap is the deciding assumption: a location that wins because most output goes to one market should be revisited if that share changes. Some writers set weights after scoring. Screen the list, weight factors first, score and cost each candidate, commit, price what you give up and set triggers. Stating the share of output that decides the choice, and the level at which the answer would flip, makes the recommendation testable. Listing each sacrifice with its annual cost shows the trade-off honestly rather than hiding it behind a score.
Get a GB525 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the candidate markets and the operation your Unit 9 prompt describes, together with the rubric. The custom recommendation commits to one location, shows its matrix and sensitivity, and states the cost of the choice; it is ready in 24-48h, with no charge for the first. Wherever the case gives wages, freight rates or incentive terms, those numbers are used. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB525 papers and MBA samples
- GB525 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB525 Unit 2: Country Brief
- GB525 Unit 3: Trade Policy Analysis
- GB525 Unit 4: Currency Exposure Memo
- GB525 Unit 5: Political Risk Assessment
- GB525 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB525 Unit 7: Case Analysis
- GB525 Unit 8: Regulatory Comparison
- GB525 Unit 10: Executive Summary for the Board
- GB526 Unit 9: Change Leadership Plan
- GB520 Unit 9: Retention and Relations Analysis
- GB527 Unit 9: Demand Forecast
- GB519 Unit 9: Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map
GB525 Unit 9 questions, answered
How many locations should the recommendation compare?
Two or three in depth is typical, with a short screening paragraph explaining how a longer list was narrowed. Comparing five in full detail spreads the analysis thin. What earns marks is the depth of the final comparison and honesty about what the chosen location costs, not the number of countries considered along the way.
Where do the factor weights come from?
From the operation's requirements. If the plant needs skilled technicians more than cheap labor, the weights should show that, and the paper should say so before scoring anything. Weights chosen after scoring look reverse-engineered. A sentence per weight explaining its source, plus a sensitivity check showing what happens if weights shift, usually satisfies the rubric.
Is it acceptable to recommend the location that scores second?
Yes, if the reasoning is explicit. A matrix is a tool, and a factor it captures poorly, such as a key customer's plan to move, can justify overriding it. Say why the score understates the second location and what the override costs. Graders tend to respect a reasoned override more than a mechanical result.
Where can I find a free GB525 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB525 Unit 9 location recommendation for an implant components plant, comparing Puerto Rico and Ireland with a factor matrix, a cost table, the costs of the choice and APA 7 references.
What would make Ireland the better choice?
A rise in European customers to more than 40 percent of volume, a change in US trade policy that removes Ireland's disadvantage, or repeated power outages in Puerto Rico despite backup generation would each trigger a review.