| Course | MT237 Supply Chain Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Supplier comparison |
| 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 MT237 Unit 7
A Dollar Off the Frame, Paid Back in Customers' Living Rooms: A Unit 7 Supplier Comparison for Desk Frames
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT237: Supply Chain Systems
Unit 7 Supplier Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Rise Desk Co., the three fabricators and every price, rate and cost are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where quotes and receiving records would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.
The Decision
Prairie Rise Desk Co. buys welded, powder-coated steel frame kits for its sit-stand desks from a fabricator in Tulsa. Two competitors have bid for the business. The question is which supplier gives the lowest total cost per frame, not the lowest price, over a year of normal volume plus the January peak.
The Cost Rows
The comparison builds a per-frame cost from seven rows, all based on 46,800 frames a year.
Quoted price: Tulsa [$38.40], Fort Smith [$37.40] and Rockford [$38.90].
Freight: Tulsa [$1.35] a frame, Fort Smith [$1.20] because it is slightly closer by truck routes, and Rockford [$1.80] because it ships from northern Illinois.
Late deliveries: each late truck costs Prairie Rise about [$1,600] in idle kitting labor and overtime. Over the past year Tulsa was late about six times; Fort Smith's references suggest about nine; Rockford's about two. Spread over 46,800 frames, that adds about [$0.21], [$0.31] and [$0.07].
Quality: this is the widest row. Tulsa's frames have run about 1.2 percent defective, Fort Smith's sample order 3.6 percent and Rockford's 0.8 percent. About three in ten bad frames slip through inspection and are found by customers, typically a wobble or a misaligned bracket, costing about [$110] each in replacement parts, shipping and support time. The other seven in ten are caught in the warehouse and reworked for about [$12]. Per frame, quality costs about [$0.50] for Tulsa, [$1.49] for Fort Smith and [$0.33] for Rockford.
Paperwork: Tulsa and Fort Smith send ship notices by email, which a receiving clerk keys into the system, costing about [$0.06] a frame. Rockford sends electronic ship notices that load automatically, so its paperwork cost is close to zero.
Inventory: each supplier's lead time and delivery pattern forces a different average stock. Tulsa delivers weekly with a one-week lead time, and Prairie Rise holds about [2,700] frames. Fort Smith delivers every two weeks with a longer lead time, requiring about [4,500]. Rockford delivers weekly and its electronic notices let Prairie Rise plan more tightly, about [2,000]. At a 22 percent carrying rate, that adds about [$0.49], [$0.79] and [$0.37] a frame.
The Totals
Adding the rows, Tulsa's total cost is about [$41.00] a frame, Fort Smith's about [$41.25] and Rockford's about [$41.47]. On 46,800 frames, Tulsa costs about [$1.92 million] a year, Fort Smith about [$12,000] more and Rockford about [$22,000] more.
Fort Smith's dollar discount disappears once defects are counted: its quality row alone costs about a dollar a frame more than Tulsa's, and its longer cycle adds inventory. Rockford's better quality and electronic notices are real but do not outweigh its higher price and freight.
Fort Smith's discount is spent in customers' living rooms, one wobbly desk at a time.
How Sensitive the Ranking Is
The ranking turns mainly on the quality row. If Fort Smith's real defect rate were 2 percent rather than the 3.6 percent seen in one sample order, its quality cost would fall to about [$0.83] a frame and its total to about [$40.59], making it the cheapest. That is why the sample matters: one truckload is a thin basis for a decision worth more than a million dollars a year. Rockford would overtake Tulsa only if its freight fell by about half a dollar a frame or if Tulsa's defect rate rose above about 2.3 percent. The cost of a customer-found defect also matters; if it were [$150] rather than [$110], Rockford's advantage in quality would grow, though not enough by itself to change the ranking.
What the Comparison Leaves Out
Two factors are hard to price. A defect found by a customer damages Prairie Rise's reviews and the retailer's scorecard, which this comparison counts only as a support cost. And Rockford's electronic ship notices would fit the visibility improvements later units consider, which could reduce stock across the business, not only for frames. Monczka et al. (2021) argue that total cost of ownership analysis should include quality and the costs of managing a supplier, not only price and freight, and both factors fit that view.
Recommendation
Prairie Rise should keep Tulsa as its frame supplier, ask it to adopt electronic ship notices within six months, and share the Rockford quote to press for a lower defect rate. Fort Smith should be set aside unless its defect rate falls below 1.5 percent in a second sample. Kraljic (1983) suggests that items with steady demand and several capable suppliers can be managed for cost, but a frame defect reaches the customer, which makes quality worth paying for. Ellram (1995) showed that total cost of ownership is most useful when it changes how buyers talk to suppliers, and here it gives Prairie Rise specific requests to make.
References
Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 25(8), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510099928
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109-117.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage.
The Purdue Global MT237 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh unit typically asks for a supplier comparison that goes beyond quoted price to total cost of ownership. List every cost the buyer bears because of the choice: price, freight, late deliveries, defects, the paperwork each delivery creates and the inventory each supplier's lead time and delivery pattern forces. Put each on the same per-unit basis and show how it was estimated. Defects deserve special care, since a defect found by a customer costs far more than one caught at receiving. Electronic data capability can be valued through the costs it changes, such as keying time and planning accuracy. Test which inputs could reverse the ranking. A close result deserves a recommendation that uses the comparison in negotiation. Expect about four pages with one per-unit table in your own version, citing total cost of ownership sources in APA 7.
How the MT 237 Unit 7 example is put together
The comparison states the decision and the annual volume. Seven cost rows follow, each with figures for all three suppliers and a sentence on how they were estimated, from quoted prices and freight to late-delivery costs, defects split between customers and the warehouse, keyed paperwork and inventory. A margin note explains that building the total row by row shows where each supplier gains and loses. Totals are summed and multiplied by annual volume, and the highlighted line shows Fort Smith's discount spent on wobbly desks. A sensitivity section, with a second note, tests how a lower defect rate or freight change would reverse the ranking. A section on what the comparison leaves out cites Monczka and colleagues, and the recommendation keeps Tulsa while asking for electronic notices, citing Kraljic and Ellram.
Where the points sit in the MT237 Unit 7 rubric
Supplier comparisons in this course are generally graded on completeness of cost rows, consistency of units and the reasoning behind the recommendation. Every row should be on the same per-unit basis, and graders check that annual totals match. Splitting defect costs between those found in the warehouse and those found by customers shows understanding of where quality costs actually fall. Valuing electronic data exchange through changed costs, rather than calling it modern, earns credit. A sensitivity test showing which inputs would reverse the ranking demonstrates judgment, especially when results are close. Recommendations should use the comparison in practice, such as pressing a supplier on quality. Ellram, Monczka and colleagues and Kraljic should be cited.
MT237 Unit 7 help from the desk
Supplier comparisons most often lose points by stopping at price and freight. Another common gap is ignoring the cost of defects found by customers, which can outweigh any price difference. Some writers value inventory without connecting it to each supplier's lead time and delivery frequency. Others treat electronic data capability as a yes or no feature instead of pricing what it changes. Close results are sometimes presented as decisive. Sample sizes for new suppliers' defect rates are often not mentioned, though one truckload is thin evidence. With the item, the competing quotes and your receiving records, our writers can help build the cost rows and test the ranking.
Get an MT237 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
List the suppliers your Unit 7 case compares and whatever it tells you about their prices, quality and delivery terms, with the rubric alongside. Total cost per unit, assembled one row at a time, returns in a first custom sample at no charge within 24-48h. Any row the case cannot support carries a flagged estimate. 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 4: Vulnerability Assessment
- MT237 Unit 5: Inventory Calculation
- MT237 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT237 Unit 8: Logistics and Transport Study
- MT237 Unit 9: Disruption Response Plan
- MT237 Unit 10: Supply Chain Report
- MT236 Unit 7: Distribution Network Memo
- MT221 Unit 7: Escalation Procedure
- MT220 Unit 7: Global Operations Memo
- MT219 Unit 7: Promotion Critique
MT237 Unit 7 questions, answered
What belongs in a total cost comparison of suppliers?
Everything the buyer spends because of the choice: price, freight, the cost of late deliveries, defects wherever they are found, the administrative cost of each order and receipt, and the carrying cost of stock the supplier's terms force the buyer to hold. Rows should come from records where possible and be labeled as estimates where not.
How can a supplier's EDI capability be valued in dollars?
Through the costs it changes. Electronic orders and ship notices cut the time spent keying and checking each delivery, and shipment visibility can reduce safety stock. Timing a sample of orders under each method, multiplying by deliveries and a labor rate, and adding any inventory effect gives the figure. The example finds real savings that are still smaller than the price gap.
Should the cheapest total cost always win?
Usually it leads the recommendation, but close results deserve a note on what could change them, and some factors, such as capacity or a supplier's financial health, may not fit a cost row. The example names the price at which the runner-up would win and suggests asking the chosen supplier for the electronic ship notices that give the loser its best row.
Where can I find a free MT237 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full MT237 Unit 7 supplier comparison is on this page. It builds a seven-row per-frame total cost for three steel frame suppliers, tests which inputs could change the ranking and recommends keeping the incumbent, with margin notes.
Why does the cheapest quote lose?
Fort Smith's frames ran 3.6 percent defective in a sample order, and three in ten bad frames reach customers at about $110 each, which adds about $1.49 a frame and erases its dollar discount.