Tennessee takes the seating award [77.5] to [74.5] over the Middlebury incumbent, a lead that holds until price outweighs about [30] percent, in MT436's Unit 4 selection matrix. Searches like "mt 436 unit 4 assignment example", "mt436 unit 4 sample" and "mt436 unit 4 example" land here.
What a finished MT436 Unit 4 supplier selection matrix looks like
Five pages: a weights memo, the matrix, a sensitivity chart and a one-paragraph recommendation. The memo comes first and ties each weight to a documented cost. Durability evidence carries [25] percent, backed by a year of seat warranty claims; peak capacity [20], backed by the four-day stoppage, about [$330,739] of lost contribution; delivered price [20]; design support [15]; sequenced delivery to the line [10]; financial strength [10]. The matrix scores three offers from 1 to 10 on each criterion: Middlebury, the incumbent, at [$2,110] a boat; Tennessee at [$2,190]; a Michigan shop at [$1,985]. Weighted totals come to [74.5], [77.5] and [70.5]. The chart then moves the two most contested weights, price and capacity, to find where the winner changes.
How a MT436 Unit 4 example is structured
Weights come before scores, and the paper says why that order matters: weights written after scoring can be tuned until a favorite wins. Each weight gets a paragraph linking it to money the builder has already lost or spent. Scoring rules follow, stated so a second buyer would reach the same numbers; price, for instance, earns 10 for the lowest offer and loses a point for every two percent above it, which gives Middlebury [7] and Tennessee [5]. The matrix itself is compact, one row per criterion, with a comment column quoting the evidence behind each score: accelerated weathering results on the vinyl, a walk-through of cut-and-sew capacity, audited financial statements. Sensitivity closes the analysis. The recommendation awards Tennessee and names the premium accepted, [$80] a boat or [$232,000] a year, against a stoppage that cost more in four days.
Weights with a paper trail
Each percentage cites a cost: warranty claims for durability, the spring stoppage for capacity, line-side labor for sequencing. A reader can still disagree with a weight, but only by disputing the evidence beneath it.
A price rule, written down
Lowest offer scores 10, and each two percent above it costs a point. Middlebury sits [6.3] percent above Michigan and Tennessee [10.3], so their price scores are [7] and [5], with the conversion shown.
Evidence behind each score
Weathering and seam-strength results, a capacity walk-through at each plant and three years of financial statements fill the comment column. Any score without a cited source is flagged as judgment rather than dressed up as measurement.
Where the winner changes
Raising price's weight past about [29.8] percent hands the award to Michigan; cutting capacity's below about [11.1] returns it to Middlebury. Both thresholds appear on the chart, with the other weights rescaled proportionally.
The premium accepted, and why
Tennessee costs [$80] a boat more than the incumbent, [$232,000] a year. The recommendation sets that against [$330,739] of contribution lost in four stopped days and calls the award a deliberate bet on spring capacity.
Where marks go in MT436 Unit 4
Selection matrices lose credibility fastest when weights appear without justification, and MT436 cases are often written so that the choice of weights decides the winner. A matrix that sets weights after scoring, or adjusts them until the preferred supplier leads, reads as rationalization, and experienced instructors spot it. Scores need their own rules; a price score assigned by feel undermines an otherwise tidy table. Credit usually follows evidence beside each score, such as test results or a site visit, rather than adjectives. Testing the heaviest or most disputed weight shows whether the result is robust, and a winner that flips under a small change should be reported as fragile. Recommendations naming the premium accepted, in dollars, and what it buys come across as decisions rather than arithmetic.
Get a MT436 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Which offers and criteria appear in the Unit 4 materials, and what has gone wrong with past suppliers? Include the rubric. We draft a free first matrix in 24-48h, weights defended from costs the case itself reports before any score, scoring rules written out and the point where the winner flips shown.
MT436 Unit 4 questions, answered
Why set weights before scoring?
Because weights written after scores are known can be adjusted, consciously or not, until a favored supplier wins. Fixing them first, each tied to a cost the buyer has actually suffered or expects, makes the matrix a test rather than a justification. The example writes its weights memo, including a four-day stoppage costed from production records, before entering a single score.
How should price be scored in a selection matrix?
By a stated rule that converts price differences into points the same way for every offer. The example gives the lowest price ten points and subtracts one for every two percent above it. Other rules work, such as scoring each offer as a ratio of the lowest price, but ratio scoring compresses differences, so the paper should say which rule it chose and why.
What does a sensitivity test add to a matrix?
It shows how much the answer depends on contestable judgments. The example finds that Tennessee keeps the award until price outweighs about thirty percent, and loses it to the incumbent if capacity drops below about eleven. Those thresholds tell a reader exactly which argument to have, instead of leaving one total to be accepted on faith.