| Course | MT434 Logistics and Distribution Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Shipment consolidation study |
| Length | About 860 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 5
Freight Saved Against Days Waited: An MT434 Unit 5 Shipment Consolidation Study of Four Shipping Calendars
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT434: Logistics and Distribution Management
Unit 5 Shipment Consolidation Study
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Petrie Rowing's dealers, their order stream and the rate schedule are composite; results come from the replay script described in the appendix, and the sources cited are real.
The Order Stream
Fourteen specialty fitness dealers placed 943 replenishment orders for Petrie rowers last year, 2,369 rowers in all. Most orders were small: 62 percent were for one or two rowers. The study replays the actual order stream, by dealer and day, rather than an average order size, because small orders are where minimum charges bite.
The Rate Schedule
Dealer shipments move by less-than-truckload under Petrie's contract. Rates fall at weight breaks of 500, 1,000 and 2,000 pounds: $52 per hundredweight below 500 pounds, $44 from 500, $36 from 1,000 and $29 from 2,000, adjusted by a distance factor for each dealer. Fuel adds 30 percent. Every shipment pays at least the $205 minimum. A single rower ships at about 75 pounds, so a one- or two-rower order always pays the minimum.
Four Calendars
Ship daily: every order ships the day it arrives, combined only with other orders from the same dealer that day.
Ship Tuesday and Friday: orders are held for the next Tuesday or Friday pickup and combined by dealer.
Ship Monday only: orders are held for the next Monday.
Ship Wednesday only: orders are held for the next Wednesday.
Freight Under Each Calendar
Shipping daily produces 826 shipments costing $226,169 in freight. Tuesday and Friday shipping combines orders into 692 shipments costing $206,251. Monday-only shipping produces 529 shipments costing $182,700, and Wednesday-only 533 shipments costing $183,346. The saving comes mostly from small orders that stop paying the minimum separately: two one-rower orders from the same dealer, shipped together, pay one minimum instead of two.
Pricing the Wait
Freight saved is only half the question. A dealer waiting for a rower may lose a sale or hold an empty floor spot, so held rower-days are priced at $4.20 each. That figure is built from a dealer's carrying cost on a rower, about $1.20 a day, plus an estimated $3.00 a day of lost-sale risk from the dealers' own reports of customers who walked away when a model was out of stock. The figure is an estimate, and the recommendation is tested against it below. Stock and Lambert (2001) treat this kind of cost, a customer's wait for stock, as part of the total cost a logistics decision must weigh even when no invoice records it.
Daily shipping holds nothing. Tuesday and Friday shipping holds 1,883 rower-days, a waiting cost of $7,909, for a total of $214,160. Monday-only shipping holds 4,453 rower-days, $18,703, for a total of $201,403. Wednesday-only holds 4,846, $20,353, for a total of $203,699.
Monday-only shipping is cheapest on paper and breaks the one promise dealers were sold.
Who Benefits
The freight saving accrues to Petrie, but the dealers share in it indirectly: fewer, larger shipments mean fewer deliveries to receive and fewer minimum charges built into the prices Petrie quotes them. The dealers also get a predictable rhythm, with Tuesday and Friday arrivals they can staff for. The cost to them is waiting, which is why the study prices it and why the agreement's two-day promise sets the limit.
The Dealer Agreement
Petrie's dealer agreement promises shipment within two business days of an order for any model in stock. Daily shipping meets it easily. Tuesday and Friday shipping meets it too: an order placed Wednesday waits two business days to Friday, and an order placed Monday or Thursday waits one. Monday-only and Wednesday-only shipping do not: an order placed the day after the pickup waits four business days.
Testing the Waiting Cost
If the waiting cost were twice as high, $8.40 a rower-day, Tuesday and Friday shipping would still beat daily shipping, at about $222,070 against $226,169. Monday-only shipping would cost about $220,106, barely better than twice weekly. Only above about $10.60 a rower-day would daily shipping win. The recommendation is therefore robust to the estimate within a wide range.
Recommendation
Adopt Tuesday and Friday pickups for dealer orders. It saves about $20,000 a year in freight and about $12,000 net of waiting cost, keeps every order within the two-day promise and gives dealers a predictable rhythm. Monday-only shipping would save about $12,800 more but would require renegotiating the agreement. Rushton et al. (2022) describe scheduled consolidation of this kind as a standard way to turn many small shipments into fewer larger ones, and Hall (1987) showed that the savings depend on how orders cluster in time, which the replay captures directly.
Appendix: The Replay Script
A short Python script reads each order's date, dealer and quantity, assigns it to the next pickup day under each calendar, combines orders by dealer and pickup, prices each shipment at its weight break with fuel and the minimum, and sums the rower-days each order waits. It prints shipments, freight, held rower-days and totals for each calendar.
References
Hall, R. W. (1987). Consolidation strategy: Inventory, vehicles and terminals. Journal of Business Logistics, 8(2), 57-73.
Rushton, A., Croucher, P., & Baker, P. (2022). The handbook of logistics and distribution management (7th ed.). Kogan Page.
Stock, J. R., & Lambert, D. M. (2001). Strategic logistics management (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
MT434 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth unit asks students to test whether combining shipments over time saves money once the cost of waiting is counted. Instructors expect the actual order stream, by customer and date, to be replayed under each calendar, since average order size hides how often small orders pay minimum charges. Freight should be priced at the correct weight break with fuel and minimums. Waiting cost needs a stated basis, even an estimate, because the recommendation usually turns on it. The study should test how sensitive the recommendation is to that estimate and respect any service commitment in customer agreements. A short script or spreadsheet that reproduces the replay is often expected in an appendix. The recommendation should name a calendar and what it saves net of waiting.
Inside the MT434 Unit 5 example
The order stream is described first in the sample, with the share of small orders, followed by the rate schedule and why one- and two-rower orders always pay the minimum. Four calendars are defined. Freight under each is reported and explained. A section builds the $4.20 waiting cost from two parts and cites Stock and Lambert on unrecorded costs. Totals follow, under a highlighted line on the cheapest calendar breaking a promise. The dealer agreement section shows which calendars meet the two-day limit. A sensitivity test finds the waiting cost at which daily shipping would win. A short section on who benefits precedes the recommendation, which cites Rushton and colleagues and Hall, and an appendix describes the script.
Where the points sit in the MT434 Unit 5 rubric
A consolidation study that counts freight saved and never prices the wait has answered half the question, and instructors tend to mark it that way. Waiting cost needs a stated basis, because the recommendation usually turns on it. Papers relying on average order size instead of the actual order stream miss how often small orders hit minimum charges, which is where the savings come from. Rubrics reward a sensitivity test on the waiting cost. Credit goes to checking each calendar against customer commitments. Explaining where the freight saving comes from shows understanding. A recommendation stated net of waiting cost, with the calendar named, completes the analysis, and an appendix with the replay logic lets a grader reproduce it.
MT434 Unit 5 help from the desk
The most common weak study divides annual volume by the number of pickups and prices one average shipment, which hides the minimum charges that drive the savings. Another frequent error reports freight saved without any cost for the wait. Students often choose the calendar with the lowest freight even when it breaks a service promise. Waiting cost is sometimes assumed with no basis or left as a qualitative concern. Many studies never test how sensitive the answer is. Before submitting, double your waiting cost estimate and rerun the totals. If the recommended calendar still wins, say so; if it does not, the paper should explain why you trust the lower figure.
Get an MT434 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
An order history or sample order list, the freight rate schedule and the Unit 5 rubric are what to send. Any policy your prompt names gets replayed in the composite study, which also prices the wait and reports break-even points; a script comes attached if your section wants one. Free for the first custom sample, returned 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 4: Distribution Network Analysis
- 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 5: Currency Exposure Brief
- MT431 Unit 5: Refinance Break-Even Analysis
- MT423 Unit 5: Strategic Allocation Proposal
MT434 Unit 5 questions, answered
What does consolidation actually save?
Mostly the penalty small shipments pay: minimum charges and the higher per-pound rates below each weight break. Combining several small orders into one shipment moves them into a cheaper band and cuts the number of pickups. The saving depends heavily on how small and frequent your case's orders are, so work from the order data rather than from an average.
How do I estimate the cost of making customers wait?
Look first for anything the case gives: a late-delivery credit, a lost-sales estimate, or the customer's own inventory carrying cost. Convert it to a cost per unit per day held. If nothing is supplied, state a reasonable figure with its basis and then report the break-even value at which your recommendation would change, which protects the conclusion against a disputed estimate.
Do I need a script or a spreadsheet for this assignment?
A spreadsheet is usually enough if the case gives a short order list. Longer histories are easier to replay with a simple script or a pivot table. What instructors look for is that each policy is applied to the same orders and that the method is described clearly enough to reproduce. Confirm whether the calculation file must be submitted as well.
Where can I find a free MT434 Unit 5 sample paper?
You can read the whole MT434 Unit 5 study here, replaying 943 dealer orders under four shipping calendars and pricing the wait.
Why does the MT434 Unit 5 sample reject Monday-only shipping?
It saves the most freight, but an order placed the day after the pickup waits four business days, breaking the dealer agreement's two-day promise.