| Course | MT434 Logistics and Distribution Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Reverse logistics plan |
| Length | About 850 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 9
Graded on Arrival, Worth $815 on Average: An MT434 Unit 9 Reverse Logistics Plan for Returned Rowers
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT434: Logistics and Distribution Management
Unit 9 Reverse Logistics Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Petrie Rowing's return volume, condition mix and every cost and recovery figure are composite estimates; the sources cited are real.
Why Returns Need Their Own Plan
Returns are not outbound shipping run backwards. Outbound rowers leave in full truckloads to two sites and in parcels to known addresses, new and in their cartons. Returns arrive one at a time, from every region, in mixed condition, and 44 percent of them arrive without the original carton because buyers discard it. A plan that treats them as one flow to one destination cannot say what they are worth or how to recover it, which is why Rushton et al. (2022) treat return flows as a design problem of their own.
Volume
Returns run at 6.8 percent of 38,000 consumer orders, about 2,584 rowers a year. About a third are damage claims; the rest are buyers who changed their minds within the 30-day trial or found the rower too large for the room. Fixing the carton problem from Unit 1 should reduce the damage share over time, but the plan is built on today's volume.
The Flow
A return begins with the buyer's request through Petrie's website. The buyer receives a prepaid label and, if the carton is gone, a box kit with corner protectors shipped ahead of pickup. The rower travels by parcel to the nearer site, where it is inspected within two business days and assigned one of four endings: resold as open-box, refurbished and resold, stripped for parts, or recycled. The refund is issued when the rower is received and scanned, not after grading, so the buyer's experience does not depend on the warehouse's speed.
Routing: One Destination or Two
Today every return goes to Spokane. The average return label costs $196, and box kits for cartonless returns cost $57, so the average inbound cost is $196 plus 44 percent of $57, about $221.08 a unit.
Under the plan, returns from the Midwest, South and Northeast go to Indianapolis, and those from the West and Mountain regions to Spokane, the same split as outbound orders. The average label falls to about $99.94, and the average inbound cost to about $125.02.
That saves about $96.06 a unit, or about $248,219 a year.
Grading on Arrival
Each returned rower is inspected against a written checklist and assigned a grade.
Grade A, 61 percent of returns, shows no damage or wear and is resold as open-box at $1,049. After inspection and repacking at $42 and selling cost of $47.75, it recovers about $959.25.
Grade B, 27 percent, needs a new part, often a rail or seat, and is refurbished and resold at $949. After refurbishment and inspection, it recovers about $811.75.
Grade C, 9 percent, is too damaged to sell but has parts worth about $170, recovering $128 after teardown.
Grade D, 3 percent, is beyond use and recycled, at a net cost of $12.
Expected recovery across the four grades is about $815.48 a unit.
A returned rower is not a loss of $1,190; it is a refund of $1,190 against goods worth about $815 if they are graded and routed well.
Handling Cost Counted Per Unit
The net cost of a return is the refund, less recovery, plus inbound handling. Today that is $1,190 less $815.48 plus $221.08, about $595.60 a unit, or about $1,539,043 a year. Under the plan it is $1,190 less $815.48 plus $125.02, about $499.54 a unit, or about $1,290,824 a year.
Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1999) found that many firms underestimate what returns cost because handling and disposition costs are spread across departments and never added up, and the per-unit figure here exists to prevent that.
Who Grades at Indianapolis
At Indianapolis, the third-party provider from Unit 7 will receive and grade returns using Petrie's checklist. The contract should add a returns handling fee and two measures: returns graded within two business days, and grading accuracy checked by Petrie's audit of a sample each month. Research on closed-loop supply chains describes how the value of returned products decays with time (Guide & Van Wassenhove, 2009), which makes grading speed a measure of recovered value, not only of service.
What Could Lower Return Volume
The cheapest return is one that never happens. About a third of returns are damage claims, which the carton redesign should reduce. Many of the rest come from buyers who find the rower too large for the room, which clearer dimensions on the product page and a fold-flat storage photo could reduce. A one-point cut in the return rate, from 6.8 to 5.8 percent, would avoid 380 returns and about $190,000 a year in net return cost under the plan.
Recommendation
Route returns to the nearer of the two sites, ship box kits ahead of pickup for cartonless returns, grade every return within two business days into the four outcomes and add returns measures to the provider's contract.
References
Guide, V. D. R., Jr., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). The evolution of closed-loop supply chain research. Operations Research, 57(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1080.0628
Rogers, D. S., & Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1999). Going backwards: Reverse logistics trends and practices. Reverse Logistics Executive Council.
Rushton, A., Croucher, P., & Baker, P. (2022). The handbook of logistics and distribution management (7th ed.). Kogan Page.
What the MT434 Unit 9 assignment asks for
MT434 Unit 9 turns to returns: how a company collects, grades and disposes of products customers send back. Instructors expect the flow from the customer's request to each possible ending, with routing, grading and disposition. Returns arrive singly and in mixed condition, so the plan needs a way to grade them and a value for each grade. Handling cost per returned item is the key figure: collection freight, packaging sent to the customer, inspection, and the cost of each disposition, set against the recovery each earns. Missing packaging should be addressed, since it raises cost and damage. The plan should compare routing options and estimate the net cost of returns per unit and per year. Ways to reduce return volume belong in the plan. A flow diagram and routing and grading tables are standard.
How the MT 434 Unit 9 example is put together
The plan opens by explaining why returns need their own design, citing Rushton and colleagues. Volume and its causes follow. The flow from request to four endings is described, including box kits and refund timing. A routing section compares one destination with two and gives the per-unit and annual saving. A grading section sets out four grades with their shares and net recovery, under a highlighted line reframing the refund as a recovery question. The handling cost section computes the net cost per return under both plans, citing Rogers and Tibben-Lembke. A section assigns grading at Indianapolis to the provider with two measures, with research on value decay. A section on reducing return volume precedes the recommendation.
Reading the MT434 Unit 9 grading rubric
A frequent weakness in reverse logistics answers is treating returns as outbound shipping run backwards, with one destination and one handling step. Returns arrive singly and in mixed condition, and a plan that never grades them cannot say what they are worth. Handling cost per item is the figure instructors look for; freight alone understates it, and leaving out recovery overstates the loss. Missing packaging is a common blind spot. Rubrics reward a grading scheme with shares and net recovery for each grade. Credit goes to comparing routing options with numbers. Measures for whoever grades returns show the plan can be managed. Ideas for reducing returns earn judgment marks, and a flow diagram with routing and grading tables completes the plan.
Common MT434 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common weak plan sends every return to the main warehouse and calls it a reverse supply chain. Another frequent error treats each return as a total loss of its refund, ignoring what graded returns can be sold for. Students often count return freight and forget packaging, inspection and disposition costs. The share of returns arriving without packaging is rarely considered, though it changes both cost and damage. Many plans never ask how to reduce returns. Before submitting, compute the net cost of one return under your plan, refund less recovery plus every handling cost, and multiply by annual volume. If that figure does not appear in your paper, the plan has no measure of whether it worked.
Get an MT434 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Return volumes, product details and anything the Unit 9 materials say about condition and resale go in first, followed by the prompt and your rubric. The composite plan returned routes each unit, grades it, and counts handling cost per item against recovery. First custom sample free; expect it within 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 5: Shipment Consolidation Study
- MT434 Unit 6: Last-Mile Cost Seminar Reflection
- MT434 Unit 7: Third-Party Logistics Evaluation
- MT434 Unit 8: Delivery Service Tier Proposal
- MT434 Unit 10: Distribution Plan
- MT433 Unit 9: Trade Compliance Review
- MT431 Unit 9: Fair Lending Compliance Memo
- MT423 Unit 9: Sequence Risk Illustration
MT434 Unit 9 questions, answered
What separates reverse logistics from forward logistics?
Forward logistics moves predictable quantities of new goods in planned shipments. Returns come back one at a time, at irregular intervals, in varying condition and often without packaging, so they need inspection and sorting before anyone knows their value. A strong plan designs for that uncertainty instead of reusing the outbound process. Your case will usually hint at which of these problems matters most.
Should the plan include refurbishment?
If the product is valuable enough to repair, usually yes. Compare the cost of parts and labor with the price a refurbished unit can command, and include a grading step to decide which units qualify. For low-value items, a refund without return, or recycling, may cost less than bringing the item back at all, and saying so shows judgment.
How do I calculate handling cost per returned item?
Add the costs each return incurs: collection or return freight, any packaging sent to the customer, inspection labor, and the disposition step such as repacking or repair. Divide by the number of returns if you start from annual totals. Then set the result against expected recovery to show the net loss per return, the figure decisions depend on.
Where can I find a free MT434 Unit 9 sample paper?
You can read the complete MT434 Unit 9 plan here, routing and grading about 2,584 returned rowing machines a year with per-unit handling cost.
What is a returned rower worth in the MT434 Unit 9 sample?
About $815 on average after grading into open-box, refurbished, parts and recycled outcomes, against a $1,190 refund.