| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Category sourcing strategy |
| Length | About 1,100 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 MT436 Unit 10
Secure It, Redesign It, Then Bid It: An MT436 Unit 10 Category Sourcing Strategy for a Bottleneck Display
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 10 Category Sourcing Strategy
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles, the display supplier and every figure are composite; the SAE J1939 network standard is real, and the sources cited are real.
Category Profile
Instrument clusters and displays cost Marsh Run about $1.74 million a year. The largest item is the dashboard display, about $939,600 a year at $324 a unit on 2,900 vehicles; the rest is gauges, switches and housings. The category scores low on profit impact but high on supply risk: only one display is qualified, because it alone reads the engine's proprietary data link, and the display maker's own chip supply has failed before. During a past shortage, 420 vehicles shipped without displays and had to be retrofitted at the dealer at about $185 each, about $77,700, before counting the lost goodwill.
Position Statement
The category is a bottleneck because of a design decision, not because of the market. Several makers build rugged vehicle displays, but none can read the engine's proprietary messages. Kraljic (1983) recommended securing supply for bottleneck items while working to reduce the dependence, and this strategy follows that order: protect supply first, then change the design so the category can be competed. Over three years, the aim is to move displays from the bottleneck quadrant into the one where buying power can be used.
Year One: Secure Supply
Three steps protect supply while the redesign is prepared. A two-year long-term agreement with the current display maker fixes the price and gives Marsh Run allocation priority in shortages. A twelve-month end-of-life notice clause obliges the maker to warn Marsh Run a year before discontinuing the display or its key components, with a last-time buy right. And a ten-week buffer of displays, about $180,692 of stock, protects production through a disruption shorter than the buffer.
The buffer costs about $36,138 a year to carry at 20 percent. Against a repeat of the past shortage, which cost about $77,700 in retrofits alone, the buffer pays for itself if a shortage occurs about once every two years.
Year Two: Redesign to an Open Network
The root cause of the bottleneck is the proprietary engine link. SAE J1939 is the open communication standard heavy vehicles and off-road equipment use for engine and controller data, and the engine supplier's newest controllers support it. Moving the dashboard to a J1939 network costs about $145,000 in engineering, software validation and dealer service tool updates. Once complete, any display maker whose product supports J1939 can supply Marsh Run.
The engineering team estimates nine months for the work, including field testing on twenty vehicles. The redesign needs the engine supplier's cooperation in publishing the messages Marsh Run's display must read, which is a term to add to the Unit 7 engine negotiation.
Year Three: Compete the Display
With two or more qualified displays, Marsh Run can bid the category. Quotes from two J1939 display makers suggest a price near $298.80 a unit is achievable, $25.20 below today's $324, a saving of about $73,080 a year on 2,900 vehicles. The redesign's $145,000 pays back in about two years of these savings.
The display is a bottleneck because of one proprietary link; change the link and the category becomes biddable.
Cost and Savings Over Three Years
In year one, the buffer adds about $36,138 of carrying cost and the agreement keeps the price flat. In year two, the redesign costs $145,000 and the buffer continues. In year three, the saving of about $73,080 begins and the buffer can shrink to four weeks, cutting its carrying cost to about $14,455. Across the three years, costs total about $231,700 against about $73,080 of year-three savings, a net cost of about $158,700. At about $58,600 a year of net savings after that, the strategy pays back in its sixth year on price alone; its larger value is avoiding a repeat of the 420-vehicle shortage.
Why Not Bid the Display Now
Marsh Run could ask other display makers to quote today, but without the open network no other display can read the engine data, so any bid would be for a display that cannot be installed. A competition held now would only show the current supplier that it faces no real rival. The sequence matters: secure supply while the design changes, then compete once a second supplier can actually serve the vehicle.
Why the Buffer Is Ten Weeks
The buffer covers the longest disruption the company has seen. In the past shortage, the display maker could not ship for about nine weeks while it found a substitute chip. Ten weeks covers that with a small margin. A longer buffer would cost more to carry and would risk holding displays that become obsolete if the maker issues an end-of-life notice. Once two displays are qualified in year three, a single supplier's disruption no longer stops production, and the buffer can shrink.
What Changes for Engineering
The redesign also changes how Marsh Run's own engineers work. Today, any change to the dashboard must be made through the display maker, which owns the software that reads the engine link. With an open network, Marsh Run's engineers can specify what the display must show and test it themselves, so future changes, such as adding a new warning or a new engine option, no longer depend on one outside company's schedule.
Risks
The engine supplier may resist publishing its messages, delaying year two. The new displays may need more validation than expected. Dealers need new service tools. Chopra and Sodhi (2004) warn that each risk-reduction step has costs and should be matched to the specific risk it addresses; here, the buffer addresses short disruptions and the redesign addresses the single-source dependence, so each is justified separately. Moving a category between quadrants, as studies of the matrix in practice describe (Gelderman & Van Weele, 2003), takes time, and the plan allows three years.
Measures
Progress will be reported to the operations director each quarter on five measures: weeks of display buffer on hand, end-of-life notices received, the number of qualified displays, the unit price and the number of vehicles shipped without a display. The target for the last is zero in every year.
Recommendation
Sign the long-term agreement with end-of-life notice and build the ten-week buffer this year, before the next spring peak, add the J1939 message commitment to the engine negotiation and fund the $145,000 redesign for next year.
References
Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53-61.
Gelderman, C. J., & Van Weele, A. J. (2003). Handling measurement issues and strategic directions in Kraljic's purchasing portfolio model. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5-6), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2003.07.001
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109-117.
The Purdue Global MT436 Unit 10 instructions
MT436 ends with a multi-year sourcing strategy for one category, often a bottleneck. Instructors expect a category profile with spend, suppliers and the history that explains its position, followed by a position statement that names the cause of the risk. The strategy should set aims year by year, with costs and expected savings, and should explain the order: for a bottleneck, securing supply usually comes before redesign or competition, because a bid needs credible alternatives. Each step should be tied to the risk it addresses. Risks, measures and the approvals needed now should close the strategy. The plan should connect to earlier units, such as the spend analysis and negotiation, and treat moving the category between quadrants as the goal.
Inside the MT436 Unit 10 example
The strategy opens with the category profile and the shortage history. The position statement traces the bottleneck to a design choice, citing Kraljic on securing bottleneck items while reducing dependence. Each year then gets its own section: secure supply with an agreement, notice clause and buffer, priced against a repeat shortage; redesign to an open network, with the cooperation needed from the engine supplier; and compete the display, with the saving and payback, under a highlighted line on the cause of the bottleneck. A three-year cost and savings section follows. Sections explain why bidding now would fail, why the buffer is ten weeks and what changes for engineering. Risks cite Chopra and Sodhi, measures follow and three approvals close it.
Where the points sit in the MT436 Unit 10 rubric
Category strategies tend to be judged on whether they diagnose why the category sits where it does and whether the actions follow from that diagnosis in a sensible order. A list of generic tactics for bottleneck items earns little. Rubrics reward a profile with spend, supplier count and history. Credit goes to a position statement that names the specific cause. Year-by-year aims with costs and savings, and the reason for their sequence, show strategic thinking. Pricing protective steps such as a buffer against the cost of the risk shows judgment. Linking the plan to earlier units shows integration. A roadmap, a cost and savings table and measures give graders a plan they can evaluate.
MT436 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent weak category strategy recommends finding more suppliers for a bottleneck without asking why there is only one. Another common error proposes competitive bidding immediately, which signals weakness when no alternative exists. Students often list buffer stock and long-term agreements without pricing them. Redesign is rarely considered, though it is often the only way to change a bottleneck's position. Many strategies have no measures. Before submitting, write in one sentence why your category has so few suppliers. If the answer is a design or specification choice, your strategy should change that choice before it tries to compete the category.
Get an MT436 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Name the spend category your Unit 10 strategy covers, with its suppliers, annual spend and history of problems; the rubric helps too. Expect a first strategy at no cost within 24-48h, placing the category on the portfolio grid, sequencing three years of moves and pricing each one against its payoff. 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 MT436 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT436 Unit 1: Purchasing and Profit Board Post
- MT436 Unit 2: Spend Analysis
- MT436 Unit 3: Total Cost of Ownership Model
- MT436 Unit 4: Supplier Selection Matrix
- MT436 Unit 5: Request for Proposal
- MT436 Unit 6: Negotiation Rehearsal Reflection
- MT436 Unit 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT436 Unit 8: Contract Clause Review
- MT436 Unit 9: Supplier Scorecard
- MT435 Unit 10: Operations Improvement Proposal
- MT434 Unit 10: Distribution Plan
- MT433 Unit 10: Global Sourcing Strategy
MT436 Unit 10 questions, answered
How long should a category strategy run?
Long enough to change the category's position, commonly three to five years, with annual checkpoints. Many prompts set the horizon themselves, and three years is a common choice. The example uses three because the redesign needs a model-year cycle and the bid needs qualified suppliers first. Each year has one aim and measurable targets, so the plan can be reviewed rather than simply renewed.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page holds the full MT436 Unit 10 strategy, turning a single-source dashboard display into a biddable category over three years.
Why does the MT436 Unit 10 sample not bid the display right away?
No other display can read the engine's proprietary data link yet, so a bid would only show the current supplier it has no real rival.
How does an open network change the MT436 Unit 10 category?
Moving the dashboard to SAE J1939 lets any compliant display maker supply Marsh Run, which turns a single-source bottleneck into a category that can be competed.
What does the ten-week buffer cost in the MT436 Unit 10 sample?
About $36,138 a year to carry, against about $77,700 in retrofits alone the last time displays ran short.