| Course | MT434 Logistics and Distribution Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Distribution network analysis |
| Length | About 900 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 MT434 Unit 4
Nearly $1.9 Million in Delivery Savings, $173,000 Net: An MT434 Unit 4 Distribution Network Analysis
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT434: Logistics and Distribution Management
Unit 4 Distribution Network Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Petrie Rowing, its demand by region and every cost are composite estimates; parcel rates are averages per rower by region, and the sources cited are real.
Demand by Region
Consumer demand is 38,000 rowers a year, split across five regions: West 7,600, Mountain 3,100, Midwest 7,900, South 9,600 and Northeast 9,800. Three quarters of it lies east of the Rockies, two thousand miles from the Spokane plant.
Parcel Cost by Site and Region
Each candidate site has an average ground parcel cost per rower to each region, including dimensional weight and surcharges. From Spokane, it is $112 to the West, $124 to the Mountain region, $158 to the Midwest, $172 to the South and $184 to the Northeast. From Indianapolis, it is $176, $150, $92, $104 and $112. From Dallas, $150, $128, $120, $96 and $152. Each region is served from whichever open site is cheapest.
The Lines Beneath Each Total
Every configuration is costed on five lines. Outbound parcel is demand times the cost per rower from the serving site. Inbound truckload is the cost of moving stock from Spokane to any eastern site, $33.10 a rower to Indianapolis and $31.40 to Dallas. Inventory carrying cost is valued at $640 a rower and 22 percent a year. A second site needs more total stock than one, because each site carries its own safety stock; Maister (1976) showed that splitting stock among more locations raises the total safety stock needed, roughly in proportion to the square root of how many there are. Stock is estimated at 5,600 rowers for one site, 6,760 for two and 7,600 for three. Fixed cost is $640,000 a year for each added site, for a lease, staff and systems.
Spokane Alone
Every region is served from Spokane. Outbound parcel costs $5,938,200 and inventory $788,480. There is no inbound or added fixed cost. The total is $6,726,680, and average delivery takes 4.0 business days.
Spokane and Indianapolis
Indianapolis serves the Midwest, South and Northeast, 27,300 rowers a year; Spokane keeps the West and Mountain regions. Outbound parcel falls to $4,058,400. Inbound truckload adds $903,630, inventory rises to $951,808 and fixed cost adds $640,000. The total is $6,553,838, and average delivery falls to 2.3 days.
Spokane and Dallas
Dallas serves the Midwest, South and Northeast. Outbound parcel falls to $4,594,800, inbound adds $857,220, inventory is $951,808 and fixed cost $640,000. The total is $7,043,828, higher than Spokane alone, and delivery averages 2.8 days.
All Three Sites
Indianapolis serves the Midwest and Northeast and Dallas the South. Outbound parcel falls further, to $3,981,600, but inbound costs $887,310, inventory $1,070,080 and fixed cost $1,280,000 for two sites. The total is $7,218,990, the highest of the four, for delivery averaging 2.1 days.
Counting only delivery miles, Indianapolis saves about $1.88 million; counting everything it adds, about $172,800.
What the Comparison Shows
The Indianapolis option is the only one cheaper than Spokane alone, by about $172,842 a year, and it cuts average delivery time by about 1.7 days. Dallas is cheaper to reach from Spokane by truck but is a poorer location for the Northeast, where Petrie's largest demand sits. A third site buys about a quarter of a day of faster delivery for about $665,000 a year more than the two-site option.
Chopra and Meindl (2019) describe network design as a trade-off between facility, inventory and transportation costs and the response time customers receive, and the table shows each part of that trade-off as a line. Ballou (2004) warned that site choices made from delivery distance alone tend to overlook the inventory and inbound costs that the table here makes visible.
What Faster Delivery Is Worth
The Indianapolis option also delivers faster, about 2.3 business days on average against 4.0, and the table does not put a price on that. It does not need to for this decision, since the option is already the cheapest. But faster delivery matters to the service tiers in Unit 8, because a nearer site makes a two-day promise cheaper to keep from more of the country, and to returns in Unit 9, because a nearer site shortens the trip back as well as the trip out. The network decision therefore supports later decisions as well as saving money on its own.
Why Not a Third Site
A third site in Dallas would serve the South about $8 a rower more cheaply than Indianapolis, but it would need its own safety stock, its own trailers and its own fixed cost. Those added costs are larger than the parcel saving by a wide margin, so a third site does not pay at today's volume.
How Sensitive the Answer Is
The Indianapolis saving is not large relative to the totals. If fixed cost were about $813,000 rather than $640,000, or inbound freight about 19 percent higher, the saving would disappear. That narrow margin is why the Unit 7 analysis tests whether a third-party provider could run the site for less than Petrie could.
Recommendation
Add an Indianapolis site to serve the Midwest, South and Northeast, keep Spokane for the West and Mountain regions, and decide in Unit 7 whether to run the site in house or through a provider.
References
Ballou, R. H. (2004). Business logistics/supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2019). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (7th ed.). Pearson.
Maister, D. H. (1976). Centralisation of inventories and the "square root law." International Journal of Physical Distribution, 6(3), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb014366
MT434 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms
In Unit 4 students compare distribution network configurations, usually one site against two or more, for a stated demand pattern. Instructors expect demand by region, a cost to serve each region from each candidate site and every cost a new site adds: inbound transport to stock it, extra inventory because each site needs its own safety stock, and fixed cost for the building, staff and systems. Each configuration should be totaled on the same lines, with delivery time shown alongside cost. The analysis should state how sensitive the result is to the most uncertain line and why a third site does or does not pay. Choosing a site from a map or from delivery miles alone misses most of the analysis. A demand table and a comparison table are standard.
How the MT 434 Unit 4 example is put together
Demand by region opens the sample, with the share east of the Rockies. Parcel cost per rower from each site to each region follows. A section defines the five lines beneath every total and cites Maister on safety stock across locations. Each configuration then gets a short section with its lines, total and average delivery time, under a highlighted line contrasting gross and net savings. The comparison section explains why Dallas fails and a third site costs far more than it saves, with Chopra and Meindl and Ballou. A section notes what faster delivery means for later units. A sensitivity test finds the fixed cost and inbound freight that would erase the saving, and the recommendation hands the run-or-outsource question to Unit 7.
Where the points sit in the MT434 Unit 4 rubric
Network papers in MT434 are often marked down for adding a facility and counting only the delivery miles it saves. Here that shortcut would claim nearly $1.9 million of savings when inbound trailers, extra stock and fixed cost leave about $173,000. Inventory is the line most commonly missing, since stock in two places needs more buffer than stock in one. Rubrics reward identical cost lines for every configuration and delivery time reported beside cost. Credit goes to a sensitivity test on the most uncertain line. Explaining why a third site does not pay shows the analysis looked beyond the winner. A demand table, a cost-per-rower matrix and a single comparison table make every total traceable.
MT434 Unit 4 help from the desk
The most frequent weak network analysis picks a site near the center of demand on a map and stops. Another common error counts outbound parcel savings and forgets the trailers needed to restock the new site. Students often hold inventory constant across configurations, though splitting stock raises safety stock. Fixed cost is sometimes left out entirely or applied to the base site as well. Many papers report a single winner without saying how close the result is. Before submitting, add up every line your new site creates and set the total beside the parcel saving. If you have not written the inbound and inventory lines, your saving is overstated, probably by most of its size.
Get an MT434 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Your Unit 4 case probably lists demand points, candidate sites and some cost data; pass them along, prompt and rubric included. A composite network analysis comes back assigning each region, costing inbound freight and inventory alongside delivery, and reporting transit time for every option. The first one we write is free, ready in 24-48h. 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 MT434 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT434 Unit 1: Damaged Delivery Cost Board Post
- MT434 Unit 2: Freight Mode Comparison
- MT434 Unit 3: Carrier Selection Memo
- MT434 Unit 5: Shipment Consolidation Study
- MT434 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT434 Unit 7: Third-party Logistics Evaluation
- MT434 Unit 8: Service Tier Proposal
- MT434 Unit 9: Reverse Logistics Plan
- MT434 Unit 10: Distribution Plan
- MT433 Unit 4: Incoterms Trade Terms Analysis
- MT431 Unit 4: Borrower Qualification Worksheet
- MT423 Unit 4: Asset Class Review
MT434 Unit 4 questions, answered
What is the square-root rule, and should I use it?
It is a common approximation: buffer stock across a network scales with the square root of how many sites hold it, which puts a two-site network's buffer about 41 percent above a single site's. It suits a course-level network analysis when your case offers no inventory model of its own. Name it, state the starting stock, and note that it assumes demand splits roughly evenly.
Does the analysis need a center-of-gravity calculation?
Only if the prompt asks for one. A center of gravity locates a weighted midpoint of demand, which helps narrow a search, but it ignores inbound freight, real roads and facility cost. Many sections want candidate cities compared on total cost instead. If you include both, explain why they point to different places and which one your recommendation follows.
Is it acceptable to recommend the option that costs slightly more?
Yes, provided the paper states what the extra money buys. A network that costs more but delivers two days faster may be right for a business competing on speed. Put the cost difference and the service difference side by side, say which customers value the speed, and let the recommendation follow from that comparison rather than from preference.
Where can I find a free MT434 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page carries the full MT434 Unit 4 analysis, costing four networks for 38,000 rowers a year from Spokane alone to three sites.
Why does a third site lose money in the MT434 Unit 4 sample?
It saves some parcel cost to the South but adds its own safety stock, trailers and $640,000 of fixed cost, about $665,000 a year more than two sites.