| Course | MT237 Supply Chain Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Vulnerability assessment |
| Length | About 910 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 MT237 Unit 4
The Pickup Cap Nobody Entered: A Unit 4 Vulnerability Assessment of a Desk Maker's January Peak
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT237: Supply Chain Systems
Unit 4 Vulnerability Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Rise Desk Co., its links, capacities and every figure are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where operating records would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.
The Scenario
Every January, office workers set up home offices with the new year, retailers run promotions and Prairie Rise Desk Co.'s orders jump. Last January the company shipped about [2,153] desks a week, about [431] per shipping day, against a normal [936] a week. Each desk ships in two cartons, so the peak means about [862] cartons a day. The assessment asks one question of each link: can it carry 431 desks a day for four weeks?
The Method
For each link, the assessment estimates capacity at peak, the expected load and the ratio of capacity to load. A ratio above 1.0 means the link can carry the peak; below 1.0 means it cannot. Sheffi and Rice (2005) describe vulnerability as a combination of how likely a disruption is and how severe its consequences would be, and a capacity shortfall during the busiest month is both likely and severe.
Link One: The Kitting Line
The kitting line packs frames, columns, desktops and hardware into two cartons per desk. With two shifts, it can kit about [2,605] desks a week. Against the peak load of 2,153, the ratio is about 1.21. The line can carry the peak, with little margin for a breakdown.
Link Two: The Outbound Dock
The dock has four doors and can stage and load about [2,993] desks a week. The ratio is about 1.39, the most comfortable of the physical links.
Link Three: The Order Exception Desk
One person handles orders that need attention: addresses the carrier rejects, orders for models that just sold out, and changes requested by the retailer. At peak, about [3] percent of orders need handling, about [65] a week. The person can clear about [109] a week. The ratio is about 1.68, but the desk has no backup if that person is sick.
Link Four: Lift-Column Stock
Lift columns come from Penang by ocean. At the start of January, stock on hand covers about [ten] shipping days of peak demand, and the next container is due to arrive in about [nine]. The ratio is about 1.11, which is enough only if the container arrives on time. A one-week delay would leave the line without columns for about four days.
Link Five: The Order Import Job
Orders from the retailer arrive through a translation service and are imported into the planning system in a scheduled job. The job is set to handle up to about [500] orders per run, once a day. The ratio is about 1.16. On the heaviest days after a promotion, the job could truncate and leave orders waiting for the next day's run, a failure nobody would see until shoppers called.
Link Six: The Parcel Pickup Cap
The parcel carrier picks up from Prairie Rise's dock every afternoon. Its contract allows up to [800] cartons a day at the agreed rate; above that, the carrier may refuse extra cartons or charge a surcharge and pick them up the next day. Against 862 cartons a day at peak, the ratio is about 0.93. This is the only link below 1.0.
The cap is written in an email from the carrier's account manager, not in Prairie Rise's transport software, which schedules pickups without any limit. So in January the software keeps promising same-day shipment for orders the carrier will not take until tomorrow.
The first link to break was not a machine but a number in an email.
Links That Were Considered and Left Out
Two other links were checked and set aside. The frame fabricator in Tulsa can deliver up to about [3,000] frames a week with a week's notice, a ratio of about 1.4, as long as January's order is placed in early December. The desktop panel plant in Arkansas holds a month of panels for Prairie Rise under a stocking agreement. Both links were stretched last January but did not fail, and both depend on Prairie Rise ordering early rather than on any new arrangement.
Ranking the Links
Ranked by ratio, the pickup cap breaks first, then lift-column stock, then the import job, then the kitting line. The exception desk and dock have more room, though the exception desk has no backup. Christopher and Peck (2004) argue that resilience starts with knowing where the chain is thinnest, and here the thinnest points are a contract term and a scheduled job that nobody had checked against the peak.
Recommendations
Prairie Rise should negotiate a January cap of at least [950] cartons a day with the carrier, or arrange a second carrier for overflow, and enter the cap in the transport software so it stops promising more than the carrier will take. It should schedule the order import job to run twice a day in January. It should order the January lift-column container two weeks earlier, so the ratio for column stock rises above 1.3. And it should train a second person on the exception desk before the peak. Chopra and Sodhi (2004) note that the right mitigation depends on the specific risk, and each of these steps matches one link's weakness.
References
Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53-61.
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41-48.
What the MT237 Unit 4 assignment asks for
Unit 4 usually asks you to assess where a company's supply chain is vulnerable, often under a stress scenario. Define the scenario with numbers, such as a seasonal peak or a lost supplier. Then examine each link, physical and digital, and compare its capacity with the load the scenario puts on it; a ratio of capacity to load makes the comparison easy to read. Include people, such as a one-person desk, and systems, such as a scheduled import job, as well as machines and suppliers. Rank the links by how soon they fail and how badly. Recommend a fix for each weak link. Links that were checked and found sound can be noted briefly. Expect four to five pages with a stress table in your own version, citing resilience and risk research in APA 7.
How this MT237 Unit 4 example is built
The assessment sets out the January scenario in desks and cartons per day. The method section explains the capacity-to-load ratio, citing Sheffi and Rice. Six links follow, each with capacity, load and ratio: the kitting line, the dock, the exception desk, which a margin note highlights as a human link, column stock, the import job and the parcel cap. The cap section explains that the limit lives in an email, so the software keeps promising same-day shipment, and the highlighted line names the first break. A section notes the frame and desktop suppliers checked and set aside. Links are ranked, citing Christopher and Peck on knowing where the chain is thinnest. Recommendations pair a fix with each weak link, from a higher January cap to an earlier container, citing Chopra and Sodhi, with a second note.
Where the points sit in the MT237 Unit 4 rubric
Vulnerability assessments are generally graded on the realism of the scenario, the inclusion of digital and human links, and the specificity of recommendations. A scenario stated in units per day or week lets every link be tested against the same load. Ratios of capacity to load earn credit because they make comparison and ranking objective. Graders reward assessments that find weaknesses outside the obvious machines, such as a contract term or a scheduled job. The ranking should consider both how soon and how badly each link fails. Recommendations should be matched to links. Links checked and found adequate should be mentioned so the reader knows they were considered. Sheffi and Rice, Christopher and Peck and Chopra and Sodhi should be cited.
Common MT237 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Vulnerability papers most often fall short by listing generic risks, such as natural disasters, without testing any link against a scenario. Another common gap is ignoring digital links and people, which often fail first. Some assessments give capacities without loads, so nothing can be compared. Others rank links by intuition. Recommendations are sometimes generic, such as adding redundancy everywhere. Watch units, since a carrier's cap may be in cartons while demand is in orders. If your company has a seasonal peak, use last year's peak week as the scenario. Share the scenario and the links you know about, and a writer can help compute each ratio and rank the weak points.
Get an MT237 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Describe the chain your Unit 4 assessment covers and the pressure its prompt names, whether a peak, a supplier failure or an outage, and add the rubric. Links, loads and warning times arrive tabled and ranked in a first custom sample, free and done in 24-48h. Capacities the case never states appear as labeled estimates. 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 MT237 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT237 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT237 Unit 2: Supply Chain Map
- MT237 Unit 3: Information Flow Analysis
- MT237 Unit 5: Inventory Calculation
- MT237 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT237 Unit 7: Supplier Comparison
- MT237 Unit 8: Logistics and Transport Study
- MT237 Unit 9: Disruption Response Plan
- MT237 Unit 10: Supply Chain Report
- MT236 Unit 4: Demand Forecast Exercise
- MT221 Unit 4: Complaint Response Letter
- MT220 Unit 4: Trade Policy Brief
- MT219 Unit 4: Product Analysis
MT237 Unit 4 questions, answered
What makes a supply chain link vulnerable rather than merely slow?
A link is vulnerable when a plausible level of pressure pushes demand on it past what it can deliver, or when it has no substitute if it stops. Slowness is a normal condition; vulnerability is about the gap under stress. That is why the example tests every link against the same peak scenario instead of rating links by general impressions.
Should digital systems be included in a vulnerability assessment?
In this course, yes. Order imports, stock feeds and the people who correct rejected documents carry the chain as much as trucks do, and they can fail under load or during an outage. The example treats an order-exception desk and a transport system's routing rules as links, measured on the same scale as the loading dock.
Why separate the first link to fail from the most damaging one?
Because they call for different responses. A link that fails early but cheaply, like a carrier cap with a second carrier available, needs a routing rule. One that fails later but would stop the business, like a single-source part with no warning, needs investment. A recommendation that treats them alike usually spends money in the wrong place.
Where can I find a free MT237 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page contains a complete MT237 Unit 4 vulnerability assessment of a desk maker's January peak. It tests six links against peak load, finds a parcel pickup cap the first to fail and matches a fix to each weak link, with margin notes.
Why does the parcel cap break first?
At peak the company ships about 862 cartons a day, but the carrier's contract allows 800. The limit sits in an email, so the transport software keeps promising same-day pickups the carrier will not make.