| Course | MT400 Business Process Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Process prioritization matrix |
| Length | About 870 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 MT400 Unit 3
Weights Before Scores: An MT400 Unit 3 Process Prioritization Matrix for a Window Installer's Seven Processes
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT400: Business Process Management
Unit 3 Process Prioritization Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, scores and records are composite; the sources cited are real.
Criteria and Weights, Fixed First
Three criteria are defined and weighted before any process is scored, which keeps any suspicion of weights tuned toward a favorite off the table. Strategic importance, weighted at 40 percent, asks how directly the process drives homeowner satisfaction, cash flow and the company's growth plan. Performance gap, at 35 percent, asks how far the process runs from its target. Feasibility of change, at 25 percent, asks whether the company could improve the process within a year using its own people and without major capital. Hammer (2007) argues that process improvement should begin with a deliberate assessment of which processes most need attention, and the weights record the company's judgment about what most matters. Dumas et al. (2018) describe this kind of selection as a portfolio decision: not every process can be redesigned at once, so the choice should be explicit and revisited.
Anchored Scales
Each criterion is scored from one to five, and each level is defined. For performance gap, five means the process runs more than 40 percent worse than its target, four between 25 and 40 percent, three between 10 and 25 percent, two within 10 percent, and one at or better than target, all measured from twelve months of job records. For strategic importance, five means the process directly determines homeowner experience and cash collection, and one means it affects neither within a year. For feasibility, five means the changes lie entirely within the company's control and budget, and one means they depend on outside parties or major investment.
The Scores
Contract to cash scores 5 for importance, 5 for gap and 4 for feasibility, a weighted 4.75. Service request to resolution scores 4, 4 and 4, for 4.00. Lead to contract scores 3, 3 and 5, for 3.50. Recruit to certified installer scores 5, 2 and 3, for 3.45. Source to pay scores 3, 3 and 4, for 3.25. Record to report scores 2, 2 and 5, for 2.75. Plan to review scores 3, 2 and 3, for 2.65. On the two-by-two chart of importance against gap, with bubble size showing feasibility, contract to cash sits alone in the upper right.
Why Each Row Scored as It Did
Contract to cash earns its five on gap because the median order takes 71 days from signature to cleared payment against a 45-day goal, 58 percent longer. It earns five on importance because homeowners judge the company on it and cash depends on it, and four on feasibility because most delays sit in internal handoffs, though the manufacturer's build time is outside the company's control.
Service request to resolution scores four on gap: service calls take a median of 18 days to resolve against a 14-day target, 29 percent longer. Its importance and feasibility are both four.
Lead to contract scores only three on importance, because demand is strong and the close rate is near its target, but five on feasibility, since quoting is entirely in the company's hands.
Recruit to certified installer scores five on importance, because installer shortages cap how many jobs the company can take, but two on gap, since certification times are near target, and three on feasibility, since recruiting depends on the local labor market.
Source to pay, record to report and plan to review score lower on importance and show smaller gaps; record to report scores high on feasibility but matters little to homeowners.
Contract to cash leads on two criteria at once, which is why no reasonable change in weights moves it from first place.
Do the Weights Decide the Winner?
The ranking is rerun under two other weightings. With equal weights, contract to cash still leads at 4.67 and service request to resolution remains second at 4.00; lead to contract stays third at 3.67, and source to pay and recruit to certified installer tie at 3.33. With importance counting for half and the other two criteria a quarter each, the top two again hold, at 4.75 and 4.00, but recruit to certified installer rises to third at 3.75 and lead to contract falls to fourth at 3.50. The top two are robust; the order beneath them depends on how much weight importance carries, and the matrix says so rather than presenting one ranking as settled.
One More Reason to Start With Contract to Cash
Many service calls begin as contract-to-cash failures: a window ordered to the wrong size, a sill condition not passed on, a unit installed without its trim. Remakes and return visits then enter service request to resolution. Improving contract to cash should therefore reduce the load on the second-ranked process as well. Kohlbacher (2010) found that organizations that manage work as end-to-end processes report gains in speed and customer satisfaction, and this connection suggests the gains here could compound.
Recommendation
Contract to cash should be analyzed and redesigned first, followed by service request to resolution once the first redesign is in place.
References
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of business process management (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4
Hammer, M. (2007). The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85(4), 111-123.
Kohlbacher, M. (2010). The effects of process orientation: A literature review. Business Process Management Journal, 16(1), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151011017985
Reading the MT 400 Unit 3 instructions
For Unit 3, students rank the processes from their architecture to decide which one to analyze and redesign first. Instructors expect a small set of defined criteria, commonly importance, performance gap and feasibility, with weights fixed and justified before scoring begins. Every score level should be described so that two readers would assign the same number. Each score must be supported by evidence from the case, such as cycle times, complaint counts or error rates, and stated beside the score rather than in a separate section. A sensitivity check, rerunning the ranking under different weights, is often requested or rewarded. The paper should end with a choice and a short explanation of what the runner-up would need to overtake it. A table is usual, with a page or two of reasoning.
Inside the MT400 Unit 3 example
The sample opens by setting the three criteria and their weights, explaining why importance carries the most. A scale table then defines one through five for each criterion in plain terms, for instance what a performance gap of four means in days. The seven processes are scored row by row, each with two or three facts from job records, such as the 71-day median from signature to payment against a 45-day goal. A highlighted line warns that a score without its evidence is only an opinion. Totals put contract to cash first and service request to resolution second. The sensitivity section reruns the matrix with equal weights and with importance given half the total. A closing paragraph explains what would change the order, and Dumas and colleagues frame the method.
MT400 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Prioritization matrices tend to be marked on clear criteria, defensible weights, evidence behind each score and a tested conclusion. Defined score levels decide a large share of the MT400 marks here, since an undefined five looks arbitrary. Rubrics usually reward evidence placed beside each number rather than gathered at the end. Weights explained before scoring show the ranking was not reverse engineered. A sensitivity test earns credit for judgment, especially when the paper reports what moved and what did not. Points also go to a final choice stated plainly and linked to the next unit's handoff analysis. Clean tables, consistent rounding and APA 7 citations complete the marks. A ranking that simply names the process the student already wanted, with no testing, rarely reaches the top band.
MT400 Unit 3 help from the desk
A common weak matrix scores every process three or four, which leaves the ranking decided by rounding. Another frequent error is choosing weights after scoring, so the favored process wins by design. Students often define criteria in a word and leave score levels undefined. Evidence is sometimes missing entirely, or given only for the winning process, which makes the rest look like guesses. Feasibility is often confused with cost, though it should also cover data availability and resistance. Sensitivity checks are skipped or run once without comment. Before submitting, cover the total column and ask whether a reader could predict the winner from the evidence alone. Then change one weight by ten points and see whether the answer survives. If it flips, say so and explain why.
Get an MT400 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Scoring your own process list? Paste it, or whatever list Unit 3 hands you, along with your instructor's criteria and weighting, and the first custom matrix comes back free inside 24-48h, scored to your rubric. Charts and scoring scales other than the sample's are no obstacle, and a check on the weights comes with it. 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 MT400 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT400 Unit 1: Stalled Handoff Board Post
- MT400 Unit 2: Process Architecture Outline
- MT400 Unit 4: Handoff Analysis
- MT400 Unit 5: Performance Indicator Set
- MT400 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT400 Unit 7: Process Redesign Proposal
- MT400 Unit 8: Automation Business Case
- MT400 Unit 9: Governance Charter
- MT400 Unit 10: BPM Initiative Report
- MT382 Unit 3: Cost Index Location and Time Adjustment
- MT381 Unit 3: Activity Duration Estimate Worksheet
- MT362 Unit 3: Customer Data Inventory
MT400 Unit 3 questions, answered
Which criteria should an MT400 prioritization matrix use?
Importance, performance and feasibility are the usual three, and the sample uses them. Some prompts add risk, customer impact or cost. Whatever the set, define each criterion and every score level before you score anything, and state the weights with a reason, because the grader will check whether the ranking follows from them.
Where do the scores come from if the organization is invented?
From the facts your prompt supplies, stated as evidence beside each score. Where the case gives cycle times, complaint counts or error rates, cite them. Where it gives none, reason from what it does say and label the score as a judgment. The sample draws on composite job records so every number has a stated source.
Is a sensitivity check really expected?
Not in every section, but it strengthens the ranking whenever the weights could reasonably differ. Rerun the totals under one or two alternative weightings and report what moves. If your first choice survives each change, say so; if it does not, the matrix has found something worth discussing rather than a flaw to hide.
Where can I find a free MT400 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete MT400 Unit 3 prioritization matrix is printed here, ranking seven window company processes on three weighted criteria with a sensitivity check.
Does the winner change when the MT400 Unit 3 sample reruns its weights?
No. Contract to cash stays first with equal weights and with importance counted at half, though the order below second place shifts, which the paper reports.