| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Supplier selection matrix |
| Length | About 860 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 4
Weights Before Scores: An MT436 Unit 4 Supplier Selection Matrix for Utility Vehicle Seating
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 4 Supplier Selection Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles, the three seating suppliers, their offers and scores are composite; each weight is tied to a cost in the company's records, and the sources cited are real.
The Weights Memo
The weights are set first, from the kinds of criteria Weber et al. (1991) found buyers use most, quality, delivery, capacity and price among them, each tied to a cost in Marsh Run's own records, so they cannot be adjusted afterward to favor a supplier.
Durability evidence carries 25 percent. Seat failures, from split covers to broken frames, were the second largest source of warranty claims last year, and a seat that fails in a farm or ranch setting brings a dealer visit and an unhappy customer.
Peak capacity carries 20 percent. Last spring the incumbent could not keep up with the seasonal surge, and the line stopped for four days. At about 11.6 vehicles a day and $7,128 of contribution per vehicle, that cost about $330,739.
Delivered price carries 20 percent. The spread between the highest and lowest offer is about $205 a vehicle, about $594,500 a year at 2,900 vehicles, enough to matter but less than the stoppage risk.
Design support carries 15 percent, because a new crew-cab model needs a reworked seat within eighteen months. Sequenced delivery to the line, seats arriving in build order, carries 10 percent, since it removes a sorting step at the plant. Financial strength carries 10 percent, to guard against a supplier failing mid-contract.
The Three Offers
Middlebury, Indiana, the incumbent, offers seats at $2,110 a vehicle. A Tennessee supplier offers $2,190. A Michigan shop offers $1,985. All three prices include delivery to Muscatine and packaging returnable to the supplier, so the figures can be compared directly.
The Scores
Each offer is scored from 1 to 10 on each criterion, with the evidence noted.
Durability: Tennessee 9, from salt-spray and cycle-test reports and a 0.4 percent claim rate at its largest customer; Middlebury 7, from Marsh Run's own claims; Michigan 6, with limited field history. Peak capacity: Tennessee 9, with a second sewing line it can staff in the spring; Michigan 7; Middlebury 6, after last spring's shortfall. Price: Michigan 9, Middlebury 8, Tennessee 7. Design support: Middlebury 8, with an engineer who knows the current seats; Michigan 7; Tennessee 6. Sequenced delivery: Middlebury 9, already delivering in sequence; Tennessee and Michigan 6 each. Financial strength: Middlebury 8, Tennessee 7, Michigan 6.
Weighted Totals
With each score weighted and the products added, Tennessee totals 76.5, Middlebury 74.5 and Michigan 69.5. Tennessee wins on durability and capacity, the two criteria tied to the largest past costs. Michigan's price advantage is not enough to offset weaker evidence on durability and capacity.
The cheapest offer finishes last because the matrix weighs what the incumbent's failures actually cost.
Sensitivity
The two most contested weights are price and capacity. Holding the other criteria in proportion, Tennessee keeps the lead until price carries about a third of the total weight; at 34 percent, Middlebury moves ahead, 75.5 to 75.4. Capacity matters the other way: if its weight fell below about 15 percent, Middlebury would win. Michigan does not win under any weighting tested between 20 and 44 percent for price.
The award therefore depends mostly on how much the spring stoppage should count. Given that it cost about $330,739, more than half of the full price spread, a capacity weight of 20 percent is defensible, and the result holds.
How the Scores Were Checked
Each score was set by two people working separately, the purchasing manager and the quality engineer, and wherever their two scores were two or more points apart they reopened the evidence together before settling on one. Only three of eighteen scores needed discussion: Tennessee's design support, Michigan's capacity and Middlebury's financial strength. Recording who scored what and why makes the matrix defensible if an unsuccessful supplier asks for a debriefing, and it makes the next award faster, since the evidence file already exists.
What the Matrix Cannot Show
The scores compress evidence of different quality into one scale. Tennessee's durability score rests on test reports and another customer's claims, not on Marsh Run's own experience, and a trial lot should confirm it before full production. De Boer et al. (2001) reviewed methods for supplier selection and noted that weighted scoring is transparent and easy to explain but depends heavily on how weights and scores are set, which is why the weights memo and the sensitivity test matter as much as the totals. Monczka et al. (2021) recommend combining a selection matrix with a site visit before award.
Recommendation
Award seating to Tennessee, conditional on a trial lot of 200 seats passing Marsh Run's own cycle test and a site visit confirming the second sewing line. Ask Tennessee to match Middlebury's sequenced delivery within six months, with a short monthly report on progress, since that is the criterion where Tennessee scored lowest relative to the incumbent.
References
De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00028-9
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(91)90033-R
What the MT436 Unit 4 assignment asks for
The fourth unit asks students to build a weighted scoring matrix to select a supplier. Instructors expect the criteria and weights set and justified before any supplier is scored, ideally by tying each weight to a documented cost or risk, so the weights cannot be tuned to a preferred result. Each supplier should be scored on each criterion with the evidence noted. Weighted totals should be computed and checked. A sensitivity test on the most contested weights should show where the winner would change. The recommendation should acknowledge what the matrix compresses or cannot see and attach conditions, such as a trial lot or site visit, that confirm the evidence it relied on. A weights memo, the matrix, a sensitivity chart and a short recommendation are typical.
Inside the MT436 Unit 4 example
A weights memo opens this example, tying each of six weights to a cost in the company's records, including the stoppage the incumbent caused, with Weber and colleagues on common criteria. The three offers are stated. Each criterion's scores are given with their evidence. Weighted totals follow, under a highlighted line on why the cheapest offer finishes last. The sensitivity section moves price and capacity weights and reports the crossover points. A section explains how two people scored independently and reconciled differences. A limits section cites De Boer and colleagues on weighted scoring and Monczka and colleagues on site visits. The recommendation awards Tennessee on conditions.
MT436 Unit 4 rubric: what earns full points
Selection matrices lose credibility fastest when weights appear without justification, and cases are often written so that the choice of weights decides the winner. Rubrics reward weights set before scoring and tied to evidence. Credit goes to scores backed by noted evidence rather than impressions. Correct weighted totals are expected. A sensitivity test that names the crossover points shows the result's strength. Explaining how scoring bias was controlled shows rigor. Recognizing what the matrix cannot capture, and attaching conditions to the award, shows judgment. A weights memo, a matrix with evidence notes and a sensitivity chart give graders everything they need to follow the decision.
MT436 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weak selection matrix assigns weights that look reasonable but have no stated basis, and the reader cannot tell whether they were chosen before or after scoring. Another frequent error scores suppliers from general reputation rather than evidence. Students often present totals to one decimal place as if small differences were meaningful. Sensitivity is rarely tested, so a winner by two points appears certain. Many recommendations name the top scorer without any condition. Before submitting, change your two most debatable weights by five points each and recompute. If the winner changes, report the crossover point, and decide whether your evidence supports the weight you chose.
Get an 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. 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 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 4: Capacity Plan
- MT434 Unit 4: Distribution Network Analysis
- MT433 Unit 4: Incoterms Trade Terms Analysis
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.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full MT436 Unit 4 matrix is here, scoring three seating suppliers on six weighted criteria with a weights memo and sensitivity test.
What would change the winner in the MT436 Unit 4 sample?
Raising price above about a third of the total weight, or cutting capacity below about 15 percent, would move the award to the Middlebury incumbent.