Engines alone are strategic, aluminum and seating lead the leverage group, and six small categories absorb twenty-three suppliers, once the builder's MT436 Unit 2 spend is sorted Kraljic-style. Searches like "mt 436 unit 2 assignment example", "mt436 unit 2 sample" and "mt436 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished MT436 Unit 2 spend analysis looks like
About five pages with a ranked spend table, a two-by-two grid and an action table. The table orders fourteen categories by annual spend with a running cumulative share: outboard engines and rigging kits [$21.46 million], aluminum tubes, extrusions and sheet [$9.84 million], upholstered seating [$6.12 million], down to packaging at [$0.31 million]. The top three reach [72.5] percent. Each category carries an impact score and a risk score from 1 to 5, with the reason for each in a notes column. The grid places engines alone in the strategic quadrant, four categories worth [$20.62 million] in leverage, three worth [$4.78 million] in bottleneck, among them helm electronics and consoles built on supplier-owned molds, and six worth [$4.76 million] in non-critical, served by [23] active suppliers.
How a MT436 Unit 2 example is structured
Data source and cleaning come first: twelve months of purchase orders, grouped by what was bought rather than by which supplier sent the invoice. The ranking follows, with a short note on concentration. Kraljic's framework, from his 1983 Harvard Business Review article, is then applied with scoring rules written down before any category is placed: profit impact from spend share and effect on the finished boat, supply risk from the number of capable suppliers, switching time and tooling ownership. Each quadrant gets a paragraph and a recommended approach. Strategic engines call for a long-term relationship managed at executive level. Leverage categories call for competitive bidding and shorter contracts. Bottleneck items call for securing supply now and redesigning toward standard parts later. Non-critical purchases call for fewer suppliers and cheaper transactions. A final section flags the two categories sitting nearest a quadrant boundary.
Categories by what was bought
Purchase lines are regrouped by material rather than vendor, so a distributor selling both fasteners and wiring shows up in two categories. The notes explain the fifteen lines whose placement needed judgment.
Scoring rules before placement
Impact and risk are defined in advance, each on five points with written thresholds. Fixing the rules first keeps any category from being scored to fit the quadrant someone already expected it to occupy.
One strategic category
Engines carry [41.6] percent of spend from two approved makers, and a shortage stops finished boats from shipping. No other category combines that value with that exposure, which is why the strategic quadrant holds a single entry.
Small spend, real exposure
Helm electronics, steering and fiberglass consoles total [$4.78 million], under a tenth of spend, yet each depends on one or two sources and the consoles on molds the supplier owns. Securing supply outranks price there.
Twenty-three suppliers for nine percent
Six non-critical categories use [23] active suppliers for [9.2] percent of spend. The recommendation consolidates them and moves routine orders to catalogs and purchasing cards, cutting transaction cost rather than chasing unit price.
Where marks go in MT436 Unit 2
Data problems sink many spend analyses before any framework appears: categories built from supplier names instead of what was bought scatter one commodity across several rows and hide its real value. MT436 instructors frequently check that the Kraljic axes carry stated criteria, since placing categories by feel produces a grid that looks authoritative and proves nothing. A Pareto ranking with no action attached reads as description. Treating every quadrant with one tool, usually competitive bidding, misses the framework's point that bottleneck and strategic items need different handling. Credit follows a notes column that justifies each score, along with honest treatment of borderline categories. Papers recommending a buying approach for every quadrant, tied to the builder's own figures, show the analysis was meant to direct effort rather than decorate a report.
Get a MT436 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Paste the purchase list or spend data for Unit 2, whatever categories it uses and the rubric. We send a free first spend analysis within 24-48h: categories regrouped by what was bought, written scoring rules, a placed Kraljic grid and a buying approach for each quadrant, tied to the case figures.
MT436 Unit 2 questions, answered
What are the axes of the Kraljic matrix?
Profit impact and supply risk. Profit impact reflects how much a category affects cost and the finished product, often measured by spend share and its role in quality. Supply risk reflects how hard the category is to secure: few suppliers, long switching times, scarce materials or tooling the buyer does not own. Each axis needs written criteria, or placements become guesses.
Why regroup spend by material instead of supplier?
Because one supplier can sell several categories, and one category can come from many suppliers. Grouping by invoice source hides the true size of a commodity and mixes items carrying different risks. The example regroups twelve months of purchase lines by what was bought, which is why wiring from a general distributor lands in harnesses rather than hardware.
Can a small category belong in a critical quadrant?
Yes, and the bottleneck quadrant exists for exactly that case. A category with modest spend but one qualified source can halt production as surely as the largest one. In the example, helm electronics cost under two million dollars a year yet depend on a single display maker, so securing supply there matters more than negotiating price.