| Course | MT296 Supply Chain Management Applications |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Applied supply chain report |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT296 Unit 10
Five Decisions, About $175,000 a Year, and Thirty Cases of Headroom: A Unit 10 Applied Supply Chain Report
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT296: Supply Chain Management Applications
Unit 10 Applied Supply Chain Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The pierogi maker and every figure are composite and illustrative and draw on the earlier units' samples; the sources cited are real.
Executive Summary
Over the past term, the company's operations team analyzed five supply chain decisions. This report brings them together for the owners. Adopting all five would reduce annual costs by about $174,860 compared with current practice or the alternatives considered. The seasonal demand forecast underpins every one of them. The main risk is that the growth-adjusted production plan uses almost all of the plant's overtime capacity in winter, leaving about 30 cases a month of headroom; if demand grows faster than the 3.8 percent forecast, the company will need a second shift or an earlier inventory build.
The Foundation: A Seasonal Forecast
Every decision below depends on knowing how demand moves through the year. The seasonal forecasting method, tested on two years of potato-cheddar shipments, cut average error from 24.9 percent with a moving average to 6.1 percent. Applied to the whole frozen line and adjusted for 3.8 percent growth, it gives the monthly demand used in the production plan and the volumes used in the warehouse and transport decisions. Hyndman and Athanasopoulos (2021) stress that downstream planning is only as good as the forecast feeding it, and a forecast error of 25 percent would make every number below unreliable.
The Decision Table
Each decision is listed with its annual value against the alternative.
1. Production plan: a hybrid plan, building some inventory in summer and using overtime from October to March, costs $142,228 a year at the growth-adjusted forecast, against $267,265 for level production. Value: $125,037.
2. Western cold store: Toledo instead of Fort Wayne, the site the center of gravity pointed to. Value: $22,354.
3. Jacksonville lane: rail containers instead of trucks, with appointments set two days past average transit. Value: $19,288.
4. Potato flakes: full-truckload orders of 800 bags instead of eight-pallet orders, taking the supplier's 2 percent discount. Value: $7,076.
5. Service target: 97 percent cycle service level on the best-selling flavor instead of 99 percent. Value: $1,105.
Total: $174,860 a year.
Can the Savings Be Added?
The five values can be added because each comes from a separate cost pool: production and storage, regional warehousing, one long-haul lane, one ingredient's purchasing and one item's safety stock. They interact only slightly. The Toledo decision changes which warehouse receives Midwest freight but does not affect the Jacksonville lane, which ships directly from Buffalo. The safety stock decision affects the plant freezer's contents but is small next to the seasonal inventory in the production plan. Chopra (2019) warns that supply chain decisions often interact, and this report checked each pair; none of the interactions is large enough to change the total by more than a few thousand dollars.
The Production Plan Under Growth
The production plan is the largest decision and the one most exposed to error. At this year's forecast, the hybrid's winter rate is about 47,667 cases a month, leaving about 630 cases a month of overtime headroom below the 48,300 the plant can make on one shift. With 3.8 percent growth, the winter rate rises to about 48,270 cases a month, leaving only about 30.
The plan that saves the most money is also the one with the least room to spare.
That is too thin. A large December promotion, or a winter that grows 5 percent instead of 3.8, would push demand beyond the single shift's ceiling of 48,300 cases, overtime included. December is the month most at risk, since it already carries the year's highest demand and the plan has no inventory to spare by then. The company has three responses ready. It can build about 3,000 more cases in September and carry them into December, at a cost of roughly $9,700 in extra storage and handling. It can arrange a short second-shift round for December only, at about $40,000 plus premiums. Or it can ask the largest chains to confirm December promotions by August, which would let the plan adjust in time.
The report recommends the first and third: raise the September build modestly and require early promotion confirmation. That keeps the second shift as a last resort.
Other Risks
Rail to Jacksonville depends on a transit-time standard deviation estimated from only 14 loads; if it proves larger, the cushion should widen, at a cost of about $426 per extra day a year. Toledo's advantage depends on inbound and outbound freight rates, but it survives even large changes in either. The flake discount depends on the supplier's continued offer and on storage the plant has now confirmed. Ballou (2004) recommends a regular review of the assumptions behind logistics decisions, so that a changed rate or volume is caught before it erodes the saving.
Implementation
The decisions can be implemented in order of lead time. The flake truckload order and the 97 percent target can start next month. The rail lane can begin once the chain agrees to the new shipping day, within about six weeks. The Toledo lease should be signed by June so the warehouse is ready for the autumn build. The production plan begins in April with the summer rate, adjusted in August once promotions are confirmed.
What the Owners Are Asked to Approve
Three approvals are needed now. The Toledo lease, a three-year commitment of about $96,000 a year in storage and handling fees, which the site comparison treated as similar at all three candidates. The cheddar contract with the western New York creamery, which costs about $10,700 a year more than the cheapest supplier but protects the filling line. And a standing authorization for the September build and the overtime the winter plan needs, so that the plant does not wait for approval in the busiest months. None of the five savings depends on new equipment or hiring, which is why they can begin this year.
Measures
The operations team will report quarterly on forecast error by month, inventory against plan, overtime used against the 6,300-case monthly limit, rail appointment misses and Toledo's actual freight costs. Each measure checks one assumption behind the savings.
Conclusion
The five decisions together save about $175,000 a year, a large sum for a company of this size, and they rest on one foundation: a forecast that follows the season. The production plan's narrow winter headroom is the one place where the company should spend a little to protect the rest.
References
Ballou, R. H. (2004). Business logistics/supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chopra, S. (2019). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hyndman, R. J., & Athanasopoulos, G. (2021). Forecasting: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). OTexts. https://otexts.com/fpp3/
The Purdue Global MT296 Unit 10 instructions
The final unit asks students to combine several supply chain analyses into one report for decision makers. Begin with an executive summary that states the total value and the main risk. Present each decision with its alternative and annual value, and explain what foundation, such as the forecast, the decisions share. The prompt usually asks whether savings from separate decisions can be added, which requires checking how they interact. A risk section should test the most exposed decision against plausible changes and name responses. Close with implementation order, approvals needed and measures for follow-up. Roughly a dozen pages, with a decision table and an appendix of workings, is a common format.
How the MT 296 Unit 10 example is put together
The report opens with an executive summary of the total and the winter headroom risk. A section explains how the seasonal forecast feeds every decision, citing Hyndman and Athanasopoulos. A decision table lists five decisions with alternatives and values, under a margin note on traceability. A section on adding savings checks interactions with Chopra. The production plan is tested under 3.8 percent growth, and the highlighted line says the plan saving most has least room. Three responses are weighed, from a September build to early promotion confirmation. Other risks with Ballou, an implementation order, the approvals owners must give and quarterly measures lead to a conclusion on protecting the savings.
Where the points sit in the MT296 Unit 10 rubric
Integrated reports are graded on a clear summary, traceable values, a check of interactions, a serious risk section and a practical implementation plan. Instructors reward decision tables that show each alternative and value, so the total can be audited. Checking whether savings overlap before adding them shows understanding of supply chain interdependence. Testing the largest decision under growth or demand shocks, and naming responses with costs, demonstrates judgment. Implementation sequenced by lead time, approvals stated and measures tied to each assumption show the report can be acted on. Consistent figures with earlier units and accurate citations complete the rubric. Owners respond best to a report that states what they must approve and by when, so that section is worth writing carefully.
MT296 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent weakness is a final report that lists earlier findings without a summary, a total or a risk section. Another is adding savings that overlap, such as two decisions that both cut the same freight. Some reports present the total as certain when one decision rests on a thin margin. Others end without telling owners what they must approve. Check every figure against the unit it came from, and update any that changed with growth or new data. Give the total as a rounded figure in the summary and the exact one in the table. Send your earlier MT 296 analyses, and a writer can build the decision table, check interactions and draft the risk and implementation sections.
Get an MT296 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Collect the analyses your section produced in earlier units and attach the closing report's prompt and rubric. What comes back joins them into one recommendation, reconciles changed figures, tests headroom, and flags any savings that overlap. A free first custom sample is returned inside 24-48h, executive summary included. Name the audience too if the prompt specifies one. 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 MT296 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT296 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT296 Unit 2: Demand Forecast Exercise
- MT296 Unit 3: Inventory Model Application
- MT296 Unit 4: Safety Stock Calculation
- MT296 Unit 5: Supplier Scorecard
- MT296 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT296 Unit 7: Transportation Mode Comparison
- MT296 Unit 8: Facility Location Analysis
- MT296 Unit 9: Sales and Operations Plan
- MT282 Unit 10: Methods Statement
- MT281 Unit 10: Project Management Report
- MT262 Unit 10: Global Team Leadership Plan
- MT260 Unit 10: Group Analysis Paper
MT296 Unit 10 questions, answered
How do several analyses become one report?
Lead with the recommendation, then show how each analysis supports it and how they depend on each other. Summarize earlier work briefly instead of repeating it, update any figure that changed, and explain why. An appendix can hold detailed calculations, keeping the body focused on decisions and the value each one adds.
Should savings from separate decisions be added together?
Only after checking for interactions. Two decisions can overlap, such as a new warehouse and a new transport mode serving the same customers, and adding their savings could count one benefit twice. State that the check was made, and adjust wherever the decisions share a cost base or affect the same shipments.
What does a risk section need?
The assumption most likely to break the recommendation, how much it would have to change to do so, and the response management would make. A headroom figure, such as how much demand could grow before capacity runs out, turns a vague risk into a number management can monitor month by month.
Where can I find a free MT296 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MT296 Unit 10 applied supply chain report. It combines five decisions for a pierogi maker into about $175,000 a year of savings and tests the production plan's winter headroom.
Should savings from separate decisions be added together in the MT296 Unit 10 sample?
Here they can, because each comes from a separate cost pool, production, regional warehousing, one lane, one ingredient and one item's safety stock, and their interactions are too small to change the total much.