MT296 · Unit 8

MT296 Unit 8 facility location analysis example

Supply Chain Management Applications Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Weighted by cases shipped, the center of gravity for a composite Buffalo pierogi maker's six Midwest customers lands thirteen miles from Fort Wayne. The MT296 Unit 8 facility location analysis presented here recommends Toledo anyway, because every case still has to arrive from Buffalo first, and once that inbound freight is counted, Toledo comes out about $30,900 a year cheaper.

What this page holds

Center of gravity, transport cost and a factor rating applied to one frozen food warehouse: this MT296 Unit 8 location analysis explains why the three disagree. Searches like "mt 296 unit 8 assignment example", "mt296 unit 8 sample" and "mt296 unit 8 example" land here.

What a finished MT296 Unit 8 facility location analysis looks like

About six pages with a customer table, a map sketch and two comparison tables. Six customer warehouses, in Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis and Grand Rapids, take 309,000 cases a year between them; Chicago alone takes 96,000. The volume-weighted center of gravity falls near latitude 41.3 north, longitude 85.2 west. Three candidate cities with public cold storage are compared: Toledo, Fort Wayne and Lima. Outbound cost uses straight-line distance times 1.2 for road circuity at $0.0031 per case-mile, and inbound full truckloads from Buffalo run at $0.0014. Fort Wayne is cheapest outbound at $155,069 but dearest inbound at $179,026; Toledo totals $303,234 against $325,887 for Lima and $334,095 for Fort Wayne. A factor rating sits alongside, scoring the same three cities on four weighted criteria.

How a MT296 Unit 8 example is structured

Three tools run in sequence, and their disagreement is treated as the finding. Center of gravity comes first, with coordinates and volumes in a table and the weighted averages computed openly; the paper then notes its limits, straight lines, no highways and no account of inbound supply. Total transport cost follows for three real candidates, outbound and inbound computed separately, so the reader can see inbound is 43 percent of Toledo's total and 54 percent of Fort Wayne's. The factor rating comes third, weighting outbound cost, storage rates, labor and inbound access, and it narrowly favors Fort Wayne, 83.9 to 82.3. A reconciliation section explains why: the rating gives inbound only a fifth of the weight, far below its share of real cost. Toledo is recommended, subject to a check on cold storage availability.

Six customers, weighted

Coordinates and annual cases for each warehouse produce a weighted latitude and longitude. Chicago's volume pulls the center well west of the region Buffalo can serve comfortably.

Blind spots of the center of gravity

Straight-line distance, flat terrain and outbound flows only. The point it produces lies near Fort Wayne, and the paper treats it as a search area rather than an answer.

Inbound changes the ranking

Every case reaches the warehouse from Buffalo first. At 304 inbound road miles against Fort Wayne's 414, Toledo's inbound cost runs about $47,600 lower, more than offsetting its $16,700 outbound disadvantage.

The factor rating's weights

Outbound 35 percent, storage rates 25, labor 20, inbound 20. Fort Wayne edges ahead on this scale because the weights understate how much inbound freight costs in dollars.

Toledo, with a condition

Toledo is recommended if a public cold store there can offer about 300 pallet positions, roughly four weeks of western stock, at rates near the quotes used; otherwise Lima is the fallback.

Where marks go in MT296 Unit 8

Stopping at the center of gravity is the shortfall instructors see most on this analysis, since the unit usually asks where the facility should sit, not where a weighted average falls. Omitting inbound flows is the next most common gap, and for a warehouse fed from one plant it can reverse the answer. Distances taken as straight lines without any circuity adjustment understate cost and should at least be flagged. Factor ratings with weights nobody defends invite the same criticism as an unjustified supplier scorecard. Papers that present three tools and then pick one without reconciling their disagreement leave the reader to do the analysis. The strongest name the practical check, available space and rates, that could still change the recommendation.

Get a MT296 Unit 8 example written to your instructions

Share the Unit 8 customer locations, volumes and candidate sites, plus the prompt and rubric. The sample runs each required method and reconciles them, estimating distances where none are given and counting inbound flows from the supplying plant. Where the case lists factor weights, those are used as given. A free first custom sample comes back within 24-48h.

MT296 Unit 8 questions, answered

How is a center of gravity calculated?

Multiply each location's coordinates by its volume, sum the results, and divide by total volume, separately for the horizontal and vertical coordinates. Latitude and longitude work for a first pass over a region, or use a grid from your case. The result is a starting area to search, not a site to sign a lease on.

Why include inbound transportation?

A warehouse receives goods as well as ships them. When all stock comes from one plant, inbound distance matters as much as outbound, and ignoring it pulls the answer toward customers and away from supply. Full truckloads inbound usually cost less per case-mile than smaller outbound deliveries, so use separate rates for each direction.

What makes a good factor rating?

Factors that matter to the decision, weights tied to their real importance, and scores based on evidence. Where a factor is already measured in dollars elsewhere in the analysis, such as transport cost, take care not to count it twice or weight it far below its actual cost, which is the trap in this example.