| Course | MT436 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Supplier scorecard |
| 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 9
Yellow, Red, Then Green: An MT436 Unit 9 Supplier Scorecard for a Seat Supplier's First Year
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT436: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Unit 9 Supplier Scorecard
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Marsh Run Utility Vehicles, the Tennessee seat supplier and every measure are composite; scales and weights are those written into the supply contract, and the sources cited are real.
The Measures and Their Scales
Four measures are written into the contract, each with a scale that turns a raw result into a score from 0 to 100, so that Marsh Run and the supplier would compute the same score from the same data.
On-time-in-full delivery is the share of seat sets delivered on the scheduled day and complete. It scores 100 at 98 percent or better and 0 at 88 percent or worse, in a straight line between. Defects are counted per 100 seat sets received, from Marsh Run's receiving inspection and line rejects; 0.5 or fewer scores 100 and 2.5 or more scores 0. Corrective action time is the average days to close a corrective action request with a verified fix; 15 days scores 100 and 60 scores 0. Engineering change response is the average days to return a priced quote for a design change; 3 days scores 100 and 12 scores 0.
The weights are 35 percent for delivery, 30 for defects, 20 for corrective action and 15 for engineering change response. Delivery carries the most because the Unit 4 award was made mainly on the supplier's promised capacity.
The overall score is banded: green at 80 or above, yellow from 65 to 79.9, red below 65.
The Year, Quarter by Quarter
In the launch quarter, delivery was 95.2 percent, scoring 72.0; defects were 1.1 per hundred sets, 70.0; corrective actions closed in 28 days, 71.1; and engineering change quotes took 4 days, 88.9. The weighted score was 73.8, yellow, typical of a new supplier learning a new part.
In the spring quarter, delivery fell to 91.4 percent: 85 of 986 seat sets were late or incomplete as demand reached its seasonal peak. Delivery scored 33.8. Defects rose to 1.5 per hundred, 50.0, as the supplier rushed work; corrective actions took 38 days, 48.9; and change quotes 6 days, 66.7. The weighted score fell to 46.6, red.
In the summer quarter, after the supplier added a second sewing shift, delivery recovered to 96.8 percent, 88.0; defects fell to 0.8, 85.0; corrective actions took 20 days, 88.9; and change quotes 4 days, 88.9. The score was 87.4, green.
In the fall quarter, delivery reached 97.9 percent, 99.0; defects 0.6, 95.0; corrective actions 17 days, 95.6; and change quotes 4 days, 88.9. The score was 95.6, green.
The four-quarter average is about 75.9.
The red quarter came from the one promise the award was built on, capacity at the spring peak, and the fix was the second line the supplier had promised.
The Red Quarter
The narrative behind the spring quarter matters more than its score. During the Unit 4 award, the supplier described a second sewing line it could staff for the spring. In practice it did not hire the second shift until the backlog had already formed. The 85 late or incomplete sets stopped Marsh Run's line twice and forced overtime to rework vehicles built without seats. Defects rose at the same time because the supplier was running its single shift longer and faster.
The supplier's corrective action, the second shift, worked: delivery and defects both recovered within a quarter and stayed there.
The Decision
The supplier stays, on three written conditions. It must staff the second sewing shift from February through May each year, before the peak rather than after it. Any quarter scoring below 65 triggers a formal improvement plan within two weeks and a review of moving part of the volume back to the Middlebury supplier, which remains qualified. And the supplier's corrective action time must stay under 25 days, since slow corrective action was the second weakest measure in the red quarter.
Prahinski and Benton (2004) found that how buyers communicate evaluations affects whether supplier performance improves, and the scorecard is shared with the supplier each quarter, with the raw data, so it can check every score. Krause et al. (2000) found that buyer involvement with suppliers, not only evaluation, raises performance, which is why the conditions include a joint review before each peak.
Why Not Drop the Supplier After the Red Quarter
Dropping the supplier after one red quarter would have been costly and premature. Its other three quarters were yellow and green, and its durability, the reason it won the award, held up: seat warranty claims fell in the second half of the year. Switching back to Middlebury would also have reopened the capacity problem that cost Marsh Run four days of production the year before.
Using the Scorecard Next Year
The scales stay the same next year, so the results are comparable, but the delivery target may tighten to 99 percent for full marks once the supplier shows it can hold 98. Monczka et al. (2021) recommend that scorecards be reviewed each year so that the targets keep pressure on improvement without changing so often that results cannot be compared.
References
Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A structural analysis of the effectiveness of buying firms' strategies to improve supplier performance. Decision Sciences, 31(1), 33-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2000.tb00923.x
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Prahinski, C., & Benton, W. C. (2004). Supplier evaluations: Communication strategies to improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.005
Reading the MT 436 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth unit asks students to build a supplier scorecard and use it to make a decision. Instructors expect a small set of measures defined tightly enough that supplier and buyer would compute the same score, each with a written scale converting raw results into points, and weights with a reason. Scores should be reported over several periods, with bands that trigger action. A narrative should explain any poor period from its causes, not only its score. The decision, whether to keep, develop or replace the supplier, should follow from the results and come with written conditions. Sharing the scorecard and its data with the supplier, and reviewing the scales each year, are part of good practice. A quarterly table, a trend chart and an action page are usual.
How the MT 436 Unit 9 example is put together
In this sample the four measures are defined with their data sources and scales, then weighted with a reason and banded. Each quarter's raw results and scores are reported in turn. A highlighted line ties the red quarter to the capacity promise the award relied on. The red-quarter narrative traces the late seat sets and rising defects to the supplier's delay in staffing its second line, and records the recovery. The decision keeps the supplier on three written conditions, citing Prahinski and Benton on communicating evaluations and Krause and colleagues on buyer involvement. A section explains why dropping the supplier would have been premature, and the scorecard's use next year closes it, citing Monczka and colleagues.
Reading the MT436 Unit 9 grading rubric
Scorecards usually stand or fall on whether the measures are defined tightly enough that supplier and buyer would compute the same score. Measures with no stated scale, or scores assigned by impression, earn little. Rubrics reward weights with a stated reason. Credit goes to bands that trigger defined actions. A narrative that explains a poor period from its causes shows analysis beyond the numbers. A decision with written conditions, rather than a general warning, shows management judgment. Sharing results with the supplier and planning a scale review show understanding of how scorecards improve performance. A quarterly table, a trend chart and an action page let graders follow both the scores and the decision.
MT436 Unit 9 help from the desk
The most common weak scorecard lists measures like quality and delivery and assigns each a score out of ten with no data or scale. Another frequent error averages the year and ignores the quarter that matters most. Students often report a red quarter without explaining what caused it. Decisions are usually vague, such as continue to monitor. Many scorecards never connect to the reason the supplier was chosen. Before submitting, hand your scale and one quarter's raw data to a classmate and ask them to compute the score. If they get a different number, the scale is not yet tight enough, and the supplier could dispute it.
Get an MT436 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the supplier performance data the Unit 9 materials include, the measures the contract or instructor specifies and any targets, along with the rubric. Your first scorecard is free and ready in 24-48h, every measure on a written scale, the worst quarter examined and conditions set for the next period. 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 6: Negotiation Rehearsal Reflection
- MT436 Unit 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT436 Unit 8: Contract Clause Review
- MT436 Unit 10: Category Sourcing Strategy
- MT435 Unit 9: Lean Waste Review
- MT434 Unit 9: Reverse Logistics Plan
- MT433 Unit 9: Trade Compliance Review
MT436 Unit 9 questions, answered
How should scorecard measures be converted to points?
By a scale both parties accept in advance, commonly linear between a floor worth zero and a target worth full marks. The example scores on-time delivery at one hundred for ninety-eight percent and zero for eighty-eight, with points in between proportional. Writing the scale into the contract makes a quarterly score arithmetic either side can check, not a judgment open to argument.
Why not simply report the annual average?
Because an average can hide the period that matters most. The example's supplier averages seventy-seven, a respectable yellow, yet scored fifty-two during the spring build peak, the quarter it was selected to handle. Reporting each quarter, and giving the worst one its own analysis, keeps the scorecard honest about when the supplier failed.
Should one red quarter end the relationship?
Rarely on its own, if the cause is understood and fixed. The example keeps the supplier after documented corrective actions produced two green quarters, but it writes conditions for the following year: a January pre-build and a trigger returning the category to dual sourcing after another red quarter. Consequences stated in advance protect the buyer without punishing a recovery.
Where can I find a free MT436 Unit 9 sample paper?
You can read the complete MT436 Unit 9 scorecard on this page, tracking a seat supplier's first year on four weighted contract measures.
What conditions does the MT436 Unit 9 sample set for keeping the supplier?
Staffing a second sewing shift from February to May, an improvement plan for any quarter below 65 and corrective actions closed within 25 days.