| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 840 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 6
I Settled at Six Percent With a Better Option in My Pocket: An MT436 Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on a Negotiation Rehearsal
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The rehearsal, Marsh Run Utility Vehicles and the tire supplier are composite; the costs are re-priced from the case figures, and the sources cited are real.
What Happened in the Rehearsal
The case gave Marsh Run about $2.64 million a year of tire and wheel purchases from one supplier. My classmate, playing the supplier's sales director, opened by asking for a 9 percent increase, about $237,600 a year, citing rubber and steel costs. I countered at 3 percent, about $79,200. We traded arguments for twenty minutes, and when she offered 6 percent, about $158,400, I accepted. It felt like a win: I had cut her opening ask by a third.
What I Had and Did Not Use
The case also told us that a second tire and wheel supplier had quoted the same specifications at prices about 3 percent above our current ones, and that qualifying them would cost about $24,000 in testing and fitment trials. I knew that before the rehearsal. I did not turn it into a number.
Here is the number. Moving to the second supplier would have cost about $79,200 a year in higher prices plus $24,000 once, about $103,200 in year one. My settlement costs $158,400 in year one. Over three years the settlement costs about $475,200; the fallback would have cost about $261,600. I agreed to a deal about $55,200 worse in the first year than walking away.
I treated my alternative as a threat to mention, not as a price to beat, and the deal I accepted was worse than the alternative.
What the Seminar Discussion Added
When the instructor asked each pair to state their walk-away point, I realized I had never set one. Fisher et al. (2011) give the name BATNA to this fallback and argue that knowing it precisely is what protects a negotiator from accepting a deal that is worse than having none. Had I computed it, my walk-away point would have been an increase of about 3.9 percent in year one, the level at which the settlement costs the same as switching, and far lower once later years are counted.
A classmate who had played the buyer in another pair, Ravi, made a second point. He said the supplier's opening of 9 percent anchored us both, and that my counter at 3 percent conceded that some increase was owed. Thompson (2020) describes how first offers pull the final settlement toward them, and I had let the supplier set the range.
Why It Felt Like a Win
The settlement felt good because I measured it against the supplier's opening rather than against my own alternative. Cutting a 9 percent ask to 6 percent sounded like progress, and my classmate even said I had been tough. But a supplier's opening number is not a cost Marsh Run would otherwise have paid; it is a starting position chosen to make the final number look reasonable. The only comparison that matters is what the company would pay without this deal, and I never made it. If I had, the right response to 6 percent would have been to thank her and say that a 3 percent increase was the most the business could accept, because a qualified alternative existed at that level.
What the Supplier Knew
The classmate playing the supplier told us afterward that her case sheet listed her own walk-away point at 2.5 percent, below even my counter. Her rubber and steel costs justified an increase of about 2 percent. Everything above that was margin she had hoped to win. I had been negotiating against a number she would have abandoned if I had held to mine.
Three Terms I Could Have Traded
Price was the only term we discussed. At least three others could have created value. A rubber and steel index clause, moving price up and down with published commodity indexes, would have addressed the supplier's stated cost concern without a fixed increase. A two-year volume commitment would have given the supplier planning security in exchange for a smaller increase. And shortening payment terms from net 45 to net 30 would have helped the supplier's cash flow, something Marsh Run could have offered cheaply in exchange for price.
What Changes Before the Next Negotiation
Before the Unit 7 engine negotiation, I will price my alternative in dollars and write down my walk-away point before the session starts. I will prepare at least three issues besides price and estimate what each is worth to both sides. And I will open with a number based on the supplier's actual cost changes rather than reacting to the supplier's opening. Monczka et al. (2021) describe this preparation as the larger part of any negotiation's outcome, and the rehearsal showed me what skipping it costs.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Thompson, L. L. (2020). The mind and heart of the negotiator (7th ed.). Pearson.
MT436 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 6 asks for a reflection on a negotiation exercise and what the writer learned from their own performance. Instructors look for self-assessment backed by numbers, not a narrative of who said what ending in a general feeling. The writer should state what happened, then measure the outcome against the alternative they held, which requires pricing that alternative. Concepts from the reading, such as the best alternative to a negotiated agreement and anchoring, should explain what went right or wrong in this specific exchange. The reflection should name terms beyond price that could have created value and commit to concrete changes before the next negotiation in the course. First person is expected, along with at least two sources.
Inside the MT436 Unit 6 example
A plain account of the rehearsal opens the sample, with the opening ask, the counter and the settlement in dollars. The next section prices the fallback the writer had not used and sets the settlement against it over one and three years, under a highlighted line on treating the alternative as a threat rather than a price. The discussion section brings in the walk-away point from Fisher and colleagues and a classmate's point about anchoring, with Thompson. Sections explain why the deal felt like a win and what the supplier's own case sheet revealed. Three tradeable terms follow. The last section commits to specific preparation steps for the engine negotiation in Unit 7, citing Monczka and colleagues.
MT436 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
Self-assessment backed by numbers sits at the core of a strong negotiation reflection. A narrative of who said what, ending in a feeling that the session went well or badly, earns little. Rubrics reward pricing the alternative and comparing the settlement with it. Credit goes to applying concepts from the reading to the specific exchange, not defining them. Naming terms beyond price that could have been traded shows the writer understands integrative bargaining. Concrete commitments for the next negotiation show learning. Honesty about a poor outcome often scores better than a defense of it. First-person writing, short cost figures and cited negotiation sources complete the expectations.
Common MT436 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Weak negotiation reflections usually recount the rehearsal in order and conclude that preparation is important. Another frequent error measures the outcome against the other side's opening offer, which makes almost any result look good. Students often mention their alternative without pricing it. Concepts such as BATNA are commonly defined from the reading rather than applied. Many reflections discuss only price, missing the terms that could have created value. Before submitting, write your walk-away point as a number and compare your settlement with it. If you had no number during the exercise, say so plainly; graders value that admission more than a defense of the result.
Get an MT436 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Describe the Unit 6 seminar negotiation: which side you played, the numbers that came up, where it settled and whether this replaces live attendance. Attach the rubric as well. The first reflection is on us, written in 24-48h, and it re-prices your outcome against your fallback and names each trade left unused. 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 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT436 Unit 8: Contract Clause Review
- MT436 Unit 9: Supplier Scorecard
- MT436 Unit 10: Category Sourcing Strategy
- MT435 Unit 6: Queueing Seminar Reflection
- MT434 Unit 6: Last-Mile Cost Seminar Reflection
- MT433 Unit 6: Trade Dispute Seminar Reflection
MT436 Unit 6 questions, answered
How can a reflection measure whether a negotiation went well?
By comparing the settlement with the negotiator's best alternative, priced in the same terms. A deal is good if it beats what walking away would have cost and poor if it does not, whatever the atmosphere in the room. The example re-prices a six percent settlement against a second-source fallback and finds the settlement worse in every year shown.
Is it acceptable to admit the negotiation went badly?
Yes, and it often produces the stronger reflection. The task rewards insight into preparation and tactics, and a candid account of a poor outcome, explained with numbers, shows more learning than a success story. The example states plainly that the writer paid more than the fallback would have cost, then traces that result to a single gap in preparation.
What if the live rehearsal was missed?
Sections typically provide a written alternative, often a negotiation case to analyze or a scripted exchange to evaluate. The reflection then assesses the case's negotiator rather than the writer's own performance, applying the same concepts: the fallback, the anchor, the trades available. The alternative's own instructions set its length and any required sources.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 6 sample paper?
You can read the whole MT436 Unit 6 reflection here, re-pricing a 6 percent tire settlement against a fallback that would have cost less.
What would the writer's walk-away point have been in the MT436 Unit 6 sample?
About a 3.9 percent increase in year one, where the settlement would cost the same as switching to the second tire source.