| Course | MT296 Supply Chain Management Applications |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Supplier scorecard |
| Length | About 850 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 MT296 Unit 5
Cheapest by Thirteen Cents and Last on the Scorecard: A Unit 5 Supplier Scorecard for Cheddar
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT296: Supply Chain Management Applications
Unit 5 Supplier Scorecard
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The pierogi maker, its three cheddar suppliers and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Decision
The plant buys about 186,000 pounds of shredded cheddar a year for its potato-cheddar and broccoli-cheddar fillings. Its current contract ends in three months, and purchasing has a year of records for three suppliers it has used: a Wisconsin dairy cooperative, a creamery in western New York about sixty miles from the plant and a Pennsylvania broker that sources from several dairies. The scorecard compares them on five criteria.
The Data
Delivered price per pound: cooperative $2.18; creamery $2.31; broker $2.26
On-time delivery: cooperative 91.2 percent; creamery 98.4 percent; broker 95.0 percent
Lots rejected at receiving: cooperative 3 of 104; creamery 1 of 98; broker 4 of 88
Third-party food safety audit score: cooperative 96; creamery 91; broker 94
Lead time: cooperative 9 days; creamery 3 days; broker 5 days
Scoring Method
Each criterion is converted to a score out of 100 by comparing each supplier with the best performer, a common approach to normalizing scorecard data (Jacobs & Chase, 2020). Where more is better, on-time delivery and audit score, the score is the supplier's value divided by the best value. Where less is better, price, rejection rate and lead time, the score is the best value divided by the supplier's. The best performer on each criterion scores 100. Rejection rate is lots rejected divided by lots delivered: 2.9 percent for the cooperative, 1.0 for the creamery and 4.5 for the broker.
Weights and Why
Price, 30 percent: cheddar is the plant's second-largest ingredient cost, and price matters, but differences of a few cents a pound are small next to the cost of a failed delivery
On-time delivery, 20 percent: late cheese stops the filling line, and the plant holds only about a week of cheese because of shelf life
Quality, measured by rejected lots, 20 percent: a rejected lot means emergency sourcing and, if found late, scrapped filling
Food safety audit, 15 percent: all three pass, so this criterion separates good from very good rather than safe from unsafe
Lead time, 15 percent: shorter lead time lets the plant hold less safety stock and respond to the seasonal surge
Monczka et al. (2021) recommend that scorecard weights reflect the total cost of ownership of a supply relationship, not the purchase price alone, and these weights try to do that.
Results
Cooperative: price 100, on-time 92.7, quality 35.4, audit 100, lead time 33.3; weighted total 75.6
Creamery: price 94.4, on-time 100, quality 100, audit 94.8, lead time 100; weighted total 97.5
Broker: price 96.5, on-time 96.5, quality 22.4, audit 97.9, lead time 60.0; weighted total 76.4
The creamery wins clearly. The cooperative leads on price and audit score but loses heavily on quality and lead time.
Thirteen cents a pound buys a lot of reliability when the line stops without it.
Sensitivity
How much would price have to matter to change the answer? Holding the other four weights in their current proportions, the cooperative overtakes the creamery only when price carries about 86 percent of the total weight. No reasonable view of this purchase puts price that high, so the result is robust.
A Cost Check
The scorecard's answer should agree with a rough cost comparison. Buying from the creamery costs about $24,200 a year more at its higher price. Against that, the creamery's better record saves money in three places: two fewer rejected lots at about $2,800 each in disposal and downtime, about $5,600; roughly seven fewer late deliveries at about $900 each in expediting, about $6,300; and six fewer days of cheese safety stock thanks to the shorter lead time, about $1,600 a year in holding cost. Those savings total about $13,500, so the creamery still costs about $10,700 a year more. The scorecard is therefore choosing reliability at a known price, which management should confirm it wants to pay.
What the Scorecard Leaves Out
Two factors are not scored. The creamery is the only one of the three within a day's drive, which helps in a winter storm but also means the plant's supply would depend on one region's weather and roads. And the cooperative has offered a two-year fixed price, while the creamery's price is fixed for one year only. Neither factor is large enough to change the result, but both belong in the contract discussion, and the second could narrow the cost gap if cheese prices rise next year.
Recommendation
The plant should award the cheddar contract to the creamery, with a clause for quarterly review of on-time and rejection rates, and keep the cooperative approved as a secondary source for the winter peak. The scorecard should be updated each quarter. Chopra (2019) notes that a qualified second source protects against a single supplier's disruption, which matters more for an ingredient the plant can store for only a week.
References
Chopra, S. (2019). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (7th ed.). Pearson.
Jacobs, F. R., & Chase, R. B. (2020). Operations and supply chain management (16th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
The Purdue Global MT296 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 asks students to evaluate suppliers with a weighted scorecard and recommend one. Gather comparable data for each supplier over the same period, convert each criterion to a common scale and choose weights that reflect the purchase's real costs and risks. Each weight should be justified in a sentence or two. The prompt usually expects a sensitivity check showing how much a weight would have to change to alter the result, and many sections ask for a rough cost comparison to confirm the scorecard's answer. Mention factors left out of the scores. Close with a recommendation, including whether to keep a second source. Five pages is usual, built around the raw data and the converted scores, with sources in APA 7.
How this MT296 Unit 5 example is built
The scorecard opens with the plant's annual cheddar use and the three suppliers. A data table gives a year of records. The scoring method converts each criterion relative to the best performer, citing Jacobs and Chase. Each weight is justified, with Monczka and colleagues on total cost of ownership, under a margin note on disagreeing with one weight. Results show the creamery far ahead, and the highlighted line says thirteen cents buys reliability. A sensitivity section finds the 86 percent break-even for price. A cost check prices rejected lots, late deliveries and safety stock against the price premium. Unscored factors are noted, and the recommendation keeps the cooperative as a second source, citing Chopra.
Where the points sit in the MT296 Unit 5 rubric
Supplier scorecards are graded on comparable data, sound scoring, justified weights, a sensitivity check and a recommendation consistent with the evidence. Converting each criterion to a common scale, with the direction of better stated, shows care. Instructors reward weights explained by the purchase's actual risks rather than chosen to fit a preferred supplier. A sensitivity test showing how robust the result is earns significant credit. A cost check that compares the scorecard's answer with money shows the writer understands what the weights imply. Naming unscored factors and recommending a second source demonstrates practical judgment. Tables that show both raw data and converted scores, and accurate citations, take the remaining credit.
MT296 Unit 5 help from the desk
The most frequent error is weighting price so heavily that the scorecard simply ranks by cost. Another is mixing scales, such as percentages and raw counts, without converting them. Some scorecards give weights without explanation, which invites the reader to doubt them. Others recommend the top score without asking what the choice costs. Check each converted score against the formula you state, and make sure lower-is-better criteria are inverted. If one supplier wins every criterion, say so plainly; the scorecard then confirms rather than decides. Send your suppliers' records, and a writer can build the scorecard, justify the weights and test how sensitive the result is.
Get an 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. 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 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT296 Unit 7: Transportation Mode Comparison
- MT296 Unit 8: Facility Location Analysis
- MT296 Unit 9: Sales and Operations Plan
- MT296 Unit 10: Applied Supply Chain Report
- MT282 Unit 5: Building Envelope Study
- MT281 Unit 5: Construction Schedule
- MT262 Unit 5: Asynchronous Process Design
- MT260 Unit 5: Communication Pattern Study
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.
Where can I find a free MT296 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete MT296 Unit 5 supplier scorecard is on this page. It scores three cheddar suppliers on five weighted criteria, tests the price weight and checks the winner against a rough cost comparison.
How robust is the result in the MT296 Unit 5 sample?
Very. Holding the other weights in proportion, price would need about 86 percent of the total weight before the cheapest supplier overtook the creamery, far beyond any reasonable view of this purchase.