| Course | MT236 Introduction to Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Supplier evaluation |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT236 Unit 3
Twenty-Four Cents, Twenty-Eight or Thirty-Three: A Unit 3 Supplier Evaluation for a Hot Sauce Maker's Glass Bottles
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT236: Introduction to Supply Chain Management
Unit 3 Supplier Evaluation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Alamo Ridge Pepper Co., the three bottle suppliers and every price, rate and score are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Decision
Alamo Ridge Pepper Co. uses about [290,000] five-ounce glass bottles a year. It has bought them from a glass plant near Monterrey for six years because the price is lowest. Last year, three late bottle shipments stopped the bottling line for a total of [nine] working days, and the company missed two grocery chain promotions. The owner asked whether a different supplier would be better.
The Three Suppliers
The Monterrey plant delivers at about [$0.24] a bottle including freight. It runs the five-ounce bottle on its furnace about every five weeks, so its lead time is about five weeks, and it sells only by the full truckload, roughly [70,000] bottles. Over the past year, about 75 percent of its shipments arrived on the promised date, and about 0.8 percent of bottles arrived broken.
A glass plant in Pennsylvania delivers at about [$0.28]. It runs the bottle more often and quotes a three-week lead time with a half-truckload minimum. Two other food companies report on-time delivery of about 95 percent, and its breakage rate in a trial order was about 0.3 percent.
A packaging distributor in Houston delivers at about [$0.33]. It keeps the bottle in stock, delivers in about four days and sells by the pallet. Its on-time record is about 97 percent, with about 0.5 percent breakage.
Where the Evidence Came From
The Monterrey figures come from Alamo Ridge's own receiving log, which records the promised and actual date of every shipment and the number of broken bottles found on unpacking. The Pennsylvania and Houston figures are weaker, since Alamo Ridge has bought only one trial order from each. For on-time delivery, the purchasing manager called two food companies that buy from the Pennsylvania plant and checked the Houston distributor's published service record, which it shares with customers. Breakage for Pennsylvania comes from a single truckload and should be treated as an estimate. The scorecard is therefore most reliable for the incumbent and least reliable for the newcomers, which argues for a trial period before any long contract.
Weighting the Criteria
Dickson (1966) asked buyers which supplier traits mattered to them, and the answers put quality and delivery at least level with price. For a bottle that stops the line when it is late, delivery matters as much as cost. The scorecard uses five criteria. Price receives 30 percent, because bottles are a large share of material cost. On-time delivery receives 25 percent, because late bottles stopped the line nine days last year. Lead time receives 20 percent, because a shorter lead time lets the company order closer to actual demand. Minimum order size receives 15 percent, because large minimums tie up cash and warehouse space. Breakage receives 10 percent, because broken bottles waste product and slow the line.
Scores
Scores run from one, poor, to five, excellent. The Monterrey plant scored 5 on price, 2 on on-time delivery, 2 on lead time, 2 on minimum order and 2 on breakage, for a weighted total of 2.90. The Pennsylvania plant scored 4, 4, 3, 3 and 5, for 3.75. The Houston distributor scored 1, 5, 5, 5 and 3, for 3.60.
What the Ranking Means
The Pennsylvania plant ranks first, but narrowly, ahead of the Houston distributor. The cheapest supplier ranks last because its price advantage cannot make up for poor delivery. On the company's annual volume, Pennsylvania's bottles cost about [$11,600] more a year than Monterrey's. Last year's nine days of stopped production cost about [$14,000] in idle labor and overtime, before counting the missed promotions. Kraljic (1983) argued that items whose supply is risky and important to profit should be managed for security of supply rather than price alone, and the five-ounce bottle fits that description.
The cheapest bottle cost more than it saved the year the line stopped for nine days.
Sensitivity
The ranking depends on the weights. If price were weighted at 45 percent and on-time delivery at 15, the Monterrey plant would move into second place, but Pennsylvania would still lead. The Houston distributor overtakes Pennsylvania only if lead time and minimum order together carry more than about 40 percent of the weight, which would suit a company with very little warehouse space or very uncertain demand.
Recommendation
Alamo Ridge should move most of its five-ounce bottle volume to the Pennsylvania plant and keep the Houston distributor as an emergency source for a few pallets when demand spikes. It should not drop the Monterrey plant entirely; ordering one truckload a year from it during the slow season keeps a third option open and maintains a relationship with a supplier close to the border. Chopra and Meindl (2019) note that keeping more than one qualified supplier for a critical input reduces risk, and the plan does that at modest cost.
References
Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2019). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (7th ed.). Pearson.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1966.tb00818.x
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109-117.
Reading the MT 236 Unit 3 instructions
The third unit of MT 236 usually asks you to compare suppliers for one purchased item and recommend a choice. Start from the buyer's situation: how much the item matters to production, what went wrong last year and what the company can afford to hold. Gather facts for each supplier, including price, lead time, on-time record, minimum order and quality or breakage, and say where each fact came from and how reliable it is. Then set weights, defending each in a sentence, and score every supplier on the same scale. A weighted scorecard alone can hide real differences, so pair it with a dollar comparison of what each option costs. Test whether the ranking holds if the weights change. A recommendation can split volume or keep a backup supplier. Plan on four or five pages, citing purchasing research such as Dickson or Kraljic in APA 7.
How the MT 236 Unit 3 example is put together
The evaluation opens with the decision: bottle volume, six years with the cheapest supplier and nine stopped days. Facts for each supplier follow, and a section explains that the incumbent's figures come from the receiving log while the newcomers' rest on one trial order and calls to other buyers. Dickson's survey of buyers supports weighting delivery alongside price, and each of the five weights gets a reason. Scores are listed with their totals, and a margin note explains that showing every score lets the owner change a weight. The ranking section compares the extra bottle cost with the cost of stopped production, using Kraljic on securing critical supply, and the highlighted line states the paradox. A sensitivity section tests other weights, with a second note, and the recommendation moves most volume to Pennsylvania with Houston as a backup and one Monterrey load a year.
MT236 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Supplier evaluations are generally graded on the soundness of the criteria and weights, how trustworthy each supplier's figures are and whether the final choice follows from them. Each weight should be defended from the buyer's situation, not chosen for convenience. Graders reward evaluations that say how reliable each supplier's data is, since a newcomer's record is often thinner than the incumbent's. Scores should be shown in full so the totals can be checked. A dollar comparison alongside the scorecard shows whether the ranking makes economic sense. Sensitivity testing earns credit by showing how firm the conclusion is. Recommendations that keep a backup or split volume show judgment about risk. Dickson's 1966 study and Kraljic's matrix should each carry a full entry.
MT236 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Supplier papers often fall short by choosing the lowest price and calling it an evaluation. Another frequent issue is weights that are stated without reasons, which makes the ranking look arbitrary. Some writers score suppliers on criteria for which they have no evidence. Others ignore the cost of a supplier failure, which is often larger than any price difference. Sensitivity checks are usually missing. Recommendations may drop the incumbent entirely without considering a backup role. If you buy for an employer, its receiving records are a strong source, with the company unnamed if needed. Our writers can take the item, the suppliers you are comparing and whatever records you have and help set defensible weights and test the ranking.
Get an 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. 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 MT236 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT236 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT236 Unit 2: Supply Chain Map
- MT236 Unit 4: Demand Forecast Exercise
- MT236 Unit 5: Inventory Analysis
- MT236 Unit 6: Transportation Comparison
- MT236 Unit 7: Distribution Network Memo
- MT236 Unit 8: Process Improvement Proposal
- MT236 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT236 Unit 10: Supply Chain Report
- MT221 Unit 3: Customer Expectations Report
- MT220 Unit 3: Cultural Comparison
- MT219 Unit 3: Segmentation Exercise
- MT217 Unit 3: Ratio Analysis
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.
Where can I find a free MT236 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete MT236 Unit 3 evaluation appears above; it rates three glass bottle suppliers on five weighted criteria, compares the extra cost with the cost of stopped production, tests other weights and includes margin notes.
Why does the cheapest supplier rank last?
Its 24-cent bottle scores well on price, but its 75 percent on-time record, five-week lead time and full-truckload minimum score poorly, and its late shipments stopped the bottling line for nine days last year.