Ranking a window company's seven processes on three weighted criteria, the MT400 prioritization matrix for Unit 3 shown also tests whether its weights decide the winner. Searches like "mt 400 unit 3 assignment example", "mt400 unit 3 sample" and "mt400 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished MT400 Unit 3 process prioritization matrix looks like
The matrix fills four pages. Page one holds the scoring table: seven rows, one per process, with columns for strategic importance weighted at 40 percent, performance gap at 35 and feasibility of change at 25, each scored one to five, plus a weighted total. Beneath it sits a two-by-two chart plotting importance against performance gap, with bubble size showing feasibility, so contract to cash appears alone in the upper right corner. Page two defines every score level in a rubric of its own: a performance gap of five means the process runs more than 40 percent worse than its target, measured from twelve months of job records. Page three justifies each row in two or three sentences with its evidence. Page four reruns the ranking under equal weights and under importance at half the total.
How a MT400 Unit 3 example is structured
Criteria come before any process is scored, and each is defined before it is weighted, which keeps any suspicion of weights tuned toward a favorite answer off the table. Anchored scale definitions follow, turning every number into a claim with evidence behind it: contract to cash earns its five on performance because the median order takes 71 days from signature to cleared payment against a 45-day goal. The table and chart then present the result. Row justifications take the most space and treat each process in rank order. The sensitivity check comes last and does real work: under equal weights the top two hold, while lead to contract and recruit to certified installer trade places once importance counts for half. Its last paragraph observes that many service calls begin as contract-to-cash defects, which strengthens the first choice.
Three criteria, weighted first
Importance to Ridgeway's strategy, the gap between current and target performance, and feasibility within a year, weighted 40, 35 and 25 before any row is scored.
What a five means
Anchored definitions for each level on each criterion, tied to records the company already keeps, such as job timestamps and warranty claim logs.
The table and the chart
Weighted totals from 4.50 down to 2.50, plotted so the single process that is both important and badly performing stands apart.
Row by row
Short evidence paragraphs for all seven, including why record to report, however untidy, scores low on importance for a company of this size.
Changing the weights
Two alternative weightings, with the top two positions unchanged under both and the middle of the ranking shown moving.
Where marks go in MT400 Unit 3
Scores without definitions invite the sharpest criticism, since a four on feasibility means nothing until a reader knows what separates it from a three. Weights are expected, in most sections, to be fixed and explained before scoring, and a matrix whose weights appear only beside the results reads as reverse-engineered. Evidence decides much of the grade: a performance score drawn from job records or claim counts outranks one drawn from a manager's impression. Matrices that rate departments instead of the processes named in the earlier architecture lose ground quickly, because the course asks what to fix, not whom. A missing sensitivity check leaves the ranking fragile, and a first choice that the rest of the paper never explains in operational terms loses the persuasive half of the task.
Get a 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.
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.