Three cheddar suppliers, five weighted criteria: MT296's Unit 5 supplier scorecard defends each weight and tests how heavily price would have to count to change the winner. Searches like "mt 296 unit 5 assignment example", "mt296 unit 5 sample" and "mt296 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished MT296 Unit 5 supplier scorecard looks like
The scorecard runs roughly five pages and opens on a data table holding a year of records for each supplier: delivered price, $2.18, $2.31 and $2.26 a pound; on-time delivery, 91.2, 98.4 and 95.0 percent; lots rejected, 3 of 104, 1 of 98 and 4 of 88; third-party food safety audit scores of 96, 91 and 94; and lead times of 9, 3 and 5 days. Each measure converts to a score out of 100 by comparison with the best performer. Weights are price 30 percent, on-time delivery 20, quality 20, audit 15 and lead time 15, and each gets a paragraph of justification. Totals come to 75.6 for the cooperative, 97.5 for the western New York creamery and 76.4 for a Pennsylvania broker. A sensitivity chart and a cost check follow.
How a MT296 Unit 5 example is structured
Weights are argued before any supplier is scored, which prevents the ranking from shaping the weights after the fact. Each weight is tied to a plant cost: late cheese idles the filling line, a rejected lot forces a scramble for replacement, a long lead time raises the stock the plant must hold. One worked example, the cooperative's on-time score of 92.7, demonstrates the scoring method. The results table follows. Sensitivity comes next, raising the price weight step by step while scaling the others down, until the cooperative overtakes the creamery at 86 percent. A cost check then asks whether the creamery's premium, $19,240 a year on 148,000 pounds, is earned: about 4.6 late deliveries a year from the cooperative at $6,500 each cost $29,744. The recommendation follows from both tests.
Weights before scores
Each weight is set and defended before the suppliers' data is scored. The order matters, because weights chosen after the ranking is visible tend to confirm whatever the author already preferred.
Tying each weight to a plant cost
On-time delivery and quality share 40 percent because both can stop the filling line. Audit results get 15, reflecting a retailer requirement rather than a daily operating cost.
Best performer equals 100
Every measure converts to a score out of 100 against the best of the three. Lower-is-better measures, price, rejects and lead time, are inverted so a higher score always means better.
How far price would have to count
Raising the price weight while shrinking the others proportionally, the cooperative first overtakes the creamery at 86 percent. No plausible buyer weights price that heavily, and the paper says so.
The premium, checked in dollars
The creamery costs $19,240 more a year. The cooperative's late deliveries cost about $29,744 in idled line time, so the higher price is earned on cost grounds alone.
Where marks go in MT296 Unit 5
Weights asserted without reasons attract the heaviest criticism on this assignment; a scorecard is only as defensible as the case for its weights. Scoring methods left unexplained, particularly for measures where lower is better, leave instructors unable to check the arithmetic. Stopping at the ranking skips the sensitivity question: would a plausible change in weights reverse the result? Quality recorded as an impression rather than a rate, rejected lots over lots received, loses precision credit. Price comparisons built on quoted rather than delivered cost leave freight out entirely. The strongest scorecards convert at least one non-price measure into dollars, so the recommendation survives a skeptical purchasing manager who cares mostly about price and little about the rest.
Get a MT296 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Tell us which suppliers and criteria your Unit 5 case involves and forward the prompt with its rubric. If weights are left to you, the sample argues each one before scoring anything. First custom sample free of charge, back within 24-48h, with a sensitivity test showing how firm the winner is.
MT296 Unit 5 questions, answered
How are scorecard weights chosen?
Tie each one to a cost or requirement the buyer actually faces. If late deliveries stop production, delivery deserves real weight; if audits are a customer requirement, they belong even when they rarely change day to day. One sentence per weight explaining the link is usually enough. Weights with reasons attached can be challenged and defended, which is the point.
What scoring method suits each criterion?
Common choices are ratio-to-best, where the best performer scores 100 and others are proportional, and a fixed scale such as one to five with defined bands. Ratio scoring is transparent and easy to audit. Whichever you choose, invert criteria where lower is better, such as price or lead time, and show one worked example.
Does the recommendation have to follow the highest score?
Usually it should, but not blindly. A scorecard summarizes judgment rather than replacing it. If a supplier wins narrowly but carries a risk the criteria miss, such as financial weakness, a recommendation can depart from the ranking with a stated reason. Departing without one makes the scorecard look decorative.