| Course | MT300 Management of Information Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Vendor comparison paper |
| Length | About 1,130 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 MT300 Unit 5
Gate, Cost, Fit, Risk: An MT300 Unit 5 Vendor Comparison of Three Rental Systems
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT300: Management of Information Systems
Unit 5 Vendor Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Larkfield Event Rentals, the vendors and all figures are composite; the methods and sources cited are real.
Summary
Recommendation: the rental-specialist cloud platform, at a five-year cost of $120,657. Runner-up: the field-service platform with a rental module, at $162,370. Eliminated: an upgrade of the current desktop package, at $47,000, which fails four must-have requirements.
The Options
1. Upgrade. The current vendor's newest desktop version, installed on a new office server.
2. Rental specialist. A cloud platform built for party and event rental companies, with a driver app. The vendor has about seventy employees.
3. Field service. A large cloud platform for service companies, with a rental module added two years ago.
Stage One: The Must-Have Gate
Umble et al. (2003) list careful software selection against defined business needs among the critical factors in successful enterprise implementations. The twelve musts from the Unit 4 requirements document come first, because an option that fails one cannot run a June Saturday at any price. Each result was verified by demonstration, documentation or a reference call, and any result resting only on the vendor's marketing was marked unverified.
Upgrade. Passes eight. Fails DL-01 (no driver view), DL-02 (no photo capture), DL-03 (no offline check-in) and BL-01's link to the online accounting product. Verified by demonstration.
Rental specialist. Passes all twelve. Offline check-in verified in a tablet test in airplane mode; weekend support verified by a reference call to a tent company in Ohio.
Field service. Passes eleven and is partial on AV-02: turnaround rules exist, but only as a manual hold an office user sets for each item.
The upgrade leaves at this stage. Staying with the current vendor would save $73,657 against the recommended option, but it would leave crews on paper and damage unbilled, removing most of the benefits in the Unit 3 business case.
Stage Two: Five-Year Total Cost of Ownership
Ellram (1995) argues that total cost of ownership should include every cost of acquiring, using and maintaining a purchase. The table is therefore broader than the vendor quotes. Subscriptions rise at each vendor's contractual cap, tablets are replaced in year four and staff hours are priced at loaded rates.
Upgrade ($47,000). License upgrade $14,000; support $13,800 over five years; server $8,500; training $3,200; parallel running $2,000; internal staff time $5,500.
Rental specialist ($120,657). Subscriptions $76,253 at a 5 percent cap; implementation and migration $9,500; tablets $10,400 including replacement; training $7,200; parallel running $6,552; internal staff time $10,752.
Field service ($162,370). Subscriptions $111,491 at a 3 percent cap; implementation $18,500; tablets $10,400; training $9,600; parallel running $6,552; internal staff time $5,827.
The field-service platform's lower cap does not offset its higher starting price, and its implementation costs nearly twice as much because the vendor requires a certified partner to configure the rental module.
The larger vendor would cost $41,713 more over five years to do the rental work less well.
Stage Three: Fit on Should and Could Requirements
The remaining twenty-four requirements were scored as met, partly met or unmet rather than on a weighted scale that would imply false precision.
Rental specialist. Meets nineteen, partly meets three, does not meet two (route suggestions and split payments).
Field service. Meets fifteen, partly meets five, does not meet four. Its main weakness is that it treats rental stock as parts inventory. Turnaround buffers and multi-day events, such as a tent standing for a three-day festival, would need workarounds maintained by hand. Its strengths are route optimization and a larger reporting library.
The rental specialist fits better on the work Larkfield does every day; the field-service platform fits better on features the company would use occasionally.
Stage Four: Risk
Risk is treated as something that can be negotiated, so each risk carries a mitigation that can be written into a contract.
Rental specialist.
1. Vendor size: about seventy employees, so the company could be acquired or fail. Mitigation: a clause requiring a full monthly data export in a documented format.
2. Price increases. Mitigation: the 5 percent annual cap written into the contract.
3. Weekend support capacity in peak season. Mitigation: a named support contact and a four-hour response time on Saturdays from April to October.
4. Migration errors. Mitigation: a test migration on a copy, signed off before cutover.
Field service.
1. Partner dependence for configuration. Mitigation: fixed-price statement of work.
2. Rental module maturity: two years old. Mitigation: a reference call with a rental customer before signing.
3. Workarounds maintained by hand. No contract mitigation available.
4. Price increases. Mitigation: the 3 percent cap.
The rental specialist's main risk can be reduced by contract; the field-service platform's main risk cannot, because it lies in how the product works.
Why Not Pay More for Safety
A reasonable owner might prefer the larger vendor because it is unlikely to disappear. The monthly export clause answers most of that concern: if the specialist vendor failed, Larkfield would hold a complete, documented copy of its data no more than a month old and could move to another platform. Paying $41,713 more for a poorer fit to insure against a risk the contract already covers would be expensive insurance.
How the Evidence Was Gathered
Each vendor ran the demonstration script from the Unit 4 appendix on identical data drawn from last season's busiest Saturday. The office manager, the warehouse lead and one returning crew leader watched each demonstration and recorded pass, fail or partial independently before comparing notes. Two reference calls per vendor were made to companies of similar size, one chosen by the vendor and one found independently through a trade association listing. Where the three observers disagreed, the requirement was retested during a second session rather than settled by vote.
Fit With the Business, Not the Brochure
Laudon and Laudon (2022) caution that packaged software often forces a business to change its processes to match the package. That risk is greater with the field-service platform, whose rental module was built for equipment repair firms, than with the specialist platform, which was designed around party rental work.
Limits
Reference calls were few, two per vendor. Fit scores reflect a demonstration with sample data, not a season of use. Staff time estimates depend on how quickly crews adopt the tablets, which was not tested in the field. Vendor quotes were valid for ninety days, so prices may change before signing.
Recommendation
Select the rental-specialist cloud platform at a five-year cost of $120,657, with contract clauses for a monthly data export, the 5 percent price cap, Saturday support response and a signed-off test migration. Keep the field-service platform as runner-up if negotiations fail.
References
Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(8), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510099928
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2022). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (17th ed.). Pearson.
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 241-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00547-7
Reading the MT 300 Unit 5 instructions
In Unit 5 students compare vendor options for the system defined in the requirements document. The comparison should begin with a summary naming the recommendation and the runner-up. Most prompts expect options to be screened against must-have requirements first, with evidence for each result. A total cost of ownership over several years should include implementation, hardware, training, parallel running and staff time, not only subscriptions. Fit on the remaining requirements should be scored plainly. Risks should be identified for each option, with mitigations that could be written into a contract. Instructors look for reasoning that explains why each option was eliminated. A closing choice, with the conditions attached to it such as clauses to negotiate, finishes the comparison.
Inside the MT300 Unit 5 example
The sample's summary names the specialist platform, the runner-up and the eliminated upgrade with their five-year costs. The gate stage tests twelve musts against three options, noting how each result was verified. The upgrade fails on driver view, photos, offline check-in and accounting. The cost stage lists six lines per option following Ellram. The highlighted line states that the larger vendor would cost $41,713 more to do the rental work less well. Fit is scored as met, partly met or unmet. Four risks per option carry contract mitigations. A section answers the objection that a larger vendor is safer, and another explains how three staff observed identical demonstrations. Limits and a recommendation with four clauses close the paper.
Reading the MT300 Unit 5 grading rubric
Markers of a vendor comparison tend to weigh how sound the method is, the completeness of cost analysis, the use of evidence and the clarity of the recommendation. Graders reward a funnel in which each stage removes options for stated reasons. Must-have screening should rest on verified evidence, not marketing claims. Total cost should cover the full life of the system and include internal costs. Fit scoring should avoid false precision. Risks should be specific to each vendor and paired with practical mitigations. Answering the strongest objection to the recommendation shows balance. Limits of the evidence should be stated. Cost and selection methods need cited support in APA 7 throughout the comparison.
MT300 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Vendor comparisons often rely on weighted scoring matrices with precise numbers that hide weak evidence. Another common gap is comparing only subscription prices. Some students choose the largest vendor by default without testing whether it fits the work. Risks are frequently listed without mitigation, or mitigations are vague. Must-have requirements may be checked against vendor brochures rather than demonstrations. Before drafting, run each vendor through the same short scenario taken from your organization's real records and note where each one struggles. Those notes become your evidence. Pass along the scenario, the vendor quotes and the rubric, and the comparison can be built around that evidence.
Get an MT300 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Two products or five, the first custom comparison costs you nothing. Send along the options your prompt names, whatever requirements came out of Unit 4, and the Unit 5 rubric, and a gated, costed comparison comes back in 24-48h. Pricing a vendor keeps private is estimated from comparable products and labeled as an 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 MT300 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT300 Unit 1: Levels of Work Discussion Post
- MT300 Unit 2: Systems Inventory Memo
- MT300 Unit 3: Information Systems Business Case
- MT300 Unit 4: Systems Requirements Document
- MT300 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT300 Unit 7: Data Governance Brief
- MT300 Unit 8: Analytics Report
- MT300 Unit 9: Security Risk Assessment
- MT300 Unit 10: Systems Proposal
- MT299 Unit 5: Research Summary
- MT296 Unit 5: Supplier Scorecard
- MT282 Unit 5: Building Envelope Study
- MT281 Unit 5: Construction Schedule
MT300 Unit 5 questions, answered
What belongs in total cost of ownership?
Everything the organization will spend to own and run the option over the chosen period: licenses or subscriptions with their increases, implementation, hardware, training, support, the parallel period and internal staff hours. Five years is a common horizon. Staff time is the line most often omitted, and for a small firm it can decide the ranking.
Should the cheapest option ever lose?
Yes, when it cannot do something the business requires. That is the purpose of a must-have gate ahead of any price comparison: it removes options that would cost more in workarounds than they save in fees. The comparison should still report the cheapest option's price, so a reader can see what the requirements are costing.
How can vendors be compared fairly without insider access?
Use the same kinds of sources for each: published documentation, recorded demonstrations, pricing pages or quotes, and independent reviews, all cited. Where one vendor publishes less, say so instead of filling gaps with guesses. A short note in each cell on how it was verified keeps the comparison honest and lets a reader weigh the evidence.
Where can I find a free MT300 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete MT300 Unit 5 vendor comparison is on this page, weighing three rental systems on gate, cost, fit and risk.
Why is the larger vendor not chosen in the MT300 Unit 5 sample?
It costs $41,713 more over five years, fits rental work less well and its main weakness lies in the product, which no contract clause can fix.