| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Spend analysis |
| Length | About 880 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 2
Engines Alone Are Strategic: An MT436 Unit 2 Spend Analysis Sorted on the Kraljic Matrix
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 2 Spend Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles, its fourteen categories, spend figures and scores are composite; the sources cited are real.
Cleaning the Data
Following the spend-analysis approach in the course text (Monczka et al., 2021), the work starts from twelve months of accounts payable lines, about 1,400 of them, not from the general ledger, which groups spend by account rather than by what was bought. Each line was mapped to a category by part number, and supplier names were standardized so that one fastener supplier appearing under three spellings counted once. Freight billed separately was assigned to the category it moved. The result is fourteen categories totaling about $51.62 million.
The Ranked Spend Table
Ordered by annual spend, the categories are: engines and drivetrain kits, $21.46 million; steel tube and frame weldments, $9.84 million; seating, $6.12 million; tires and wheels, $2.64 million; molded body panels, $2.06 million; wiring harnesses, $2.02 million; instrument clusters and displays, $1.74 million; fasteners, $1.22 million; cab glass and rollover structures, $0.98 million; lighting, $0.98 million; shop supplies, $0.98 million; paint and coatings, $0.86 million; decals and labels, $0.41 million; and packaging, $0.31 million.
The top three categories reach $37.42 million, 72.5 percent of the total. The bottom six together are less than a tenth.
Scoring Impact and Risk
Each category gets two scores from 1 to 5. Profit impact reflects spend and the category's effect on the vehicle's cost, quality and performance. Supply risk reflects the number of qualified suppliers, the cost and time of switching and any dependence on a supplier's tooling or technology. A notes column gives the reason for each score, so a reader can disagree with a specific judgment rather than with the whole grid.
Engines score 5 and 5: they are the largest category, they define the vehicle's performance and warranty, and only two engine makers are qualified to Marsh Run's mounts and controls. Frame weldments score 5 and 2: high spend, but several regional welding shops could build to the drawings. Seating scores 4 and 2. Tires and wheels score 4 and 1, since they decide ride and safety but are sold by many suppliers, and harnesses 4 and 2, since electrical faults drive a large share of warranty claims but several harness shops could build them. Molded body panels score 3 and 4, because the molds belong to the current supplier and would cost months to replace. Instrument clusters score 2 and 5: modest spend, but one cluster maker supports the engine's proprietary data link. Cab glass and rollover structures score 2 and 4, since the rollover structure is certified with one supplier's design. The six small categories score 1 or 2 on both.
The Matrix
Kraljic (1983) proposed sorting purchases by profit impact and supply risk into four groups and managing each differently. Using 3.5 as the dividing line on both scores, the grid places engines alone in the strategic quadrant, high on both. Four categories worth $20.62 million, frames, seating, tires and wheels, and harnesses, fall in the high-impact, low-risk quadrant, the group Kraljic saw as the place to use buying power through competition. Three categories worth $4.78 million, body panels, instrument clusters and cab glass with rollover structures, fall in the bottleneck quadrant, low in impact but high in risk. Six categories worth $4.76 million are non-critical.
One category holds strategic risk, and six hold almost no spend but most of the supplier relationships.
What the Ranking Already Shows
Even before the matrix, the ranking says where purchasing time should go. Three categories hold nearly three quarters of the spend, so a one percent improvement in any of them is worth more than eliminating several of the small categories entirely. At the same time, the small categories generate a disproportionate share of the department's transactions.
Supplier Counts
The six non-critical categories use twenty-three active suppliers, including seven for fasteners and five for shop supplies, for about $4.76 million of spend. Each supplier adds invoices, receiving and onboarding work out of all proportion to its spend.
Actions by Quadrant
For engines, the strategic category, the aim is a long-term relationship with shared cost reduction and protection of supply, which the Unit 7 negotiation plan takes up. For the four high-impact, low-risk categories, the aim is competition: total cost models, supplier selection matrices and requests for proposal, as Units 3 to 5 develop for frames, seating and harnesses. For the three bottleneck categories, the aim is to secure supply first and reduce dependence over time, which Unit 10 does for instrument clusters. For the non-critical categories, the aim is to reduce transaction cost: consolidating twenty-three suppliers to about eight and moving low-value buys to catalogs and purchasing cards.
Limits of the Matrix
The scores are judgments, and a category near the dividing line could move with a small change. Studies of firms using the matrix found that measuring the two dimensions is the hardest part and that categories can and should move between quadrants over time (Gelderman & Van Weele, 2003). A bottleneck item that becomes biddable through redesign, as Unit 10 proposes, is the clearest example.
References
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.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Reading the MT 436 Unit 2 instructions
The second unit asks students to analyze an organization's spending and position its categories on a portfolio matrix, usually Kraljic's. Instructors expect the data cleaned first: spend grouped by what was bought rather than by ledger account, and supplier names standardized. A ranked table with cumulative shares shows concentration. Each category needs a profit impact score and a supply risk score with the reason for each, so a reader can test a specific judgment. The matrix should place every category, and the paper should recommend different actions for each quadrant. Supplier counts in the low-value categories often reveal a transaction-cost problem worth solving on its own, since each extra supplier adds invoices and receiving work. The limits of the matrix, especially categories near the dividing lines, should be acknowledged.
Inside the MT436 Unit 2 example
Opening with how the payables data were cleaned and mapped, the sample cites Monczka and colleagues. The ranked spend table follows with the top-three share. A scoring section explains each category's two scores, with the reasons that matter most for engines, body panels and clusters. The matrix section, after Kraljic, places the fourteen categories in four quadrants with their totals, under a highlighted line contrasting the strategic and non-critical groups. A short section notes what the ranking alone shows. Supplier counts in the small categories are given. Actions are set out quadrant by quadrant and tied to later units. A limits section cites research on how firms struggle to measure the two dimensions.
Where the points sit in the MT436 Unit 2 rubric
Data problems sink many spend analyses before any framework appears: categories built from ledger accounts or unmerged supplier names distort every later step. Rubrics reward a ranked table with cumulative shares. Credit goes to scores with written reasons rather than unexplained numbers. Placing every category and stating the dividing line shows method. Distinct actions for each quadrant, tied to the category's position, earn analysis marks. Noticing the supplier sprawl in small categories shows practical insight. Acknowledging that scores are judgments and categories can move shows a mature use of the matrix. A ranked table, a two-by-two grid and an action table support the conclusions.
Common MT436 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common weak spend analysis copies the general ledger into a matrix, so categories mix unrelated items. Another frequent error scores impact by spend alone, missing categories like instrument clusters that cost little but can stop the line. Students often give scores without reasons, so no one can disagree usefully. Many papers place categories in quadrants but recommend the same action for all of them. Supplier counts are rarely examined. Before submitting, read each category's two scores aloud with their reasons, and ask a colleague in operations whether they would score it the same way. If a reason would fit any category, such as important to operations, replace it with something specific to that purchase.
Get an 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. 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 3: Total Cost of Ownership Model
- MT436 Unit 4: Supplier Selection Matrix
- MT436 Unit 5: Request for Proposal
- MT436 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT436 Unit 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT436 Unit 8: Contract Clause Review
- MT436 Unit 9: Supplier Scorecard
- MT436 Unit 10: Category Sourcing Strategy
- MT435 Unit 2: Process Flow Analysis
- MT434 Unit 2: Freight Mode Comparison
- MT433 Unit 2: Landed Cost Comparison
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.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 2 sample paper?
You can read the complete MT436 Unit 2 spend analysis here, sorting a utility vehicle maker's fourteen purchase categories on the Kraljic matrix.
Why are instrument clusters a bottleneck in the MT436 Unit 2 sample?
The spend is small, yet the single qualified cluster is the only one wired for the engine's closed messaging, so a shortage would halt assembly.
What does the MT436 Unit 2 sample recommend for the six small categories?
Consolidating twenty-three suppliers to about eight and moving low-value buys to catalogs and purchasing cards to cut transaction cost.