Three glass-bottle suppliers scored on price, lead time, reliability, quality and flexibility, with a dollar check on the winner, make up this completed MT236 Unit 3 supplier evaluation. Searches like "mt 236 unit 3 assignment example", "mt236 unit 3 sample" and "mt236 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished MT236 Unit 3 supplier evaluation looks like
A weighted scorecard anchors four to five pages. A facts table comes first: delivered prices per five-ounce bottle of $0.24, $0.28 and $0.33; lead times of five weeks, three weeks and four days; minimum orders of a full truckload, a half truckload and one pallet; on-time delivery of 75, 95 and 97 percent over the past year; breakage of 0.8, 0.3 and 0.5 percent. Weights follow, each defended in a sentence: price 30 percent, lead time 20, on-time delivery 20, quality 15 and flexibility 15. Scores on a five-point scale produce totals of 3.05 for Monterrey, 4.00 for Pennsylvania and 3.95 for Houston. A sensitivity line shows Houston overtaking once price drops to 25 percent. A dollar check then prices Monterrey's two late trucks last year at about $10,800.
How a MT236 Unit 3 example is structured
Facts are kept apart from judgments: every figure in the first table has a source before any score is assigned. Weights come next, argued from how this small maker operates rather than from a textbook default, since a firm with one bottling line suffers more from a late truck than from a few cents on price. Scores follow a stated rule for each criterion, so a reader can see why Monterrey's five-week lead time earns a 2. Totals are computed in a single table. Because the top two finish close together, a sensitivity line shows the weight change that would reverse them, and the paper says why it keeps price at 30 percent. A dollar check then tests the scorecard in plain cost terms. The recommendation names Pennsylvania as primary and spells out the cost of that choice: about $12,000 a year in price.
Facts before scores
Price, lead time, minimum order, on-time rate and breakage are listed with their sources for all three suppliers. Nothing in this table is a judgment; the scoring rules come afterward and refer back to it.
Weights argued from one bottling line
A late truck idles a six-person crew, so on-time delivery and lead time together carry 40 percent. Price keeps the single largest weight because bottles are the costliest packaging item the firm buys.
Scores with a rule behind each
Each criterion has a five-point rule, such as lead time under one week scoring 5 and over four weeks scoring 2, so every cell in the scorecard can be checked against the facts table.
Five hundredths apart
Pennsylvania totals 4.00 and Houston 3.95. Cutting price to 25 percent and raising flexibility to 20 reverses them, and the paper explains why that shift does not suit a firm buying 300,000 bottles a year.
The price gap, tested in dollars
Pennsylvania costs about $12,000 more a year than Monterrey. Two late trucks last year idled the line and triggered retailer chargebacks worth roughly $10,800, which erases most of that gap.
Where marks go in MT236 Unit 3
Letting the cheapest supplier win because it is cheapest, with the other criteria mentioned in a paragraph and never weighed, sinks more of these evaluations than anything else. Many Unit 3 prompts want price weighed against other criteria, and a scorecard is the usual instrument. Unjustified weights draw the second-largest deduction, particularly when they look chosen to produce the winner. Scores without a stated rule cannot be checked. Criteria that overlap, reliability and on-time delivery counted separately, quietly double a factor's weight. A close result presented as decisive, with no sensitivity check, overstates the analysis. Graders also look for facts behind the scores, a lead time or defect rate rather than good or poor. Recommendations that never state what the firm gives up by choosing the winner leave the trade-off unexamined.
Get a MT236 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Say what the firm buys and which suppliers the Unit 3 case names, or suggest real ones, then attach the prompt and rubric. A first custom evaluation is free: facts table, justified weights, rule-based scores and a dollar check, returned in 24-48h. Any supplier figure without a source sits in its own column, ready to be swapped for a real quote.
MT236 Unit 3 questions, answered
How should the criteria weights be chosen?
From the buying firm's situation, stated in a sentence per weight. A firm with no backup production line should weight reliability heavily; a firm with thin margins on a commodity input may weight price more. Weights must sum to 100 percent, and they should be set before the suppliers are scored, since weights chosen afterward can make any supplier win.
Is a weighted scorecard enough on its own?
Often not. Scores compress real differences into a five-point scale, so a dollar check alongside the scorecard strengthens the analysis, as the example's late-truck calculation does. If the scorecard and the dollars disagree, the paper should say why and which one it trusts. Many sections reward that cross-check even when the prompt only asks for the scorecard.
What counts as flexibility in a supplier evaluation?
Usually minimum order size, the ability to change quantities or dates after ordering, and willingness to ship small emergency orders. For a small firm, flexibility can matter as much as price, because a large minimum order ties up cash and storage. Define the term in the paper before scoring it, since instructors read it several different ways.