MT437 Unit 9 Automation Business Case Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Strategic Warehouse Management Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Three vertical lift modules for a composite Chattanooga distribution center's 4,200 slow-moving small parts are tested in this MT437 Unit 9 automation business case, with the building lease assumption stated up front and no credit taken for freed space. Capital is $516,000 for the units, $58,000 for software and the warehouse system interface and $46,000 for installation. Picking the parts' 1,020 nightly lines falls from 24.9 hours on shelves to 7.8 at the modules, about 5,110 hours a year worth $123,141; refill labor adds $15,906, fewer errors save $30,294 and running costs take $29,100. Net benefit of about $108,429 pays back in about 5.7 years with a ten-year net present value near $107,600, but a 20 percent drop in volume turns it negative. Brealey and colleagues and Azadeh and colleagues inform it. Purdue Global MT 437 assigns this case in the BS in Business Administration.

CourseMT437 Strategic Warehouse Management
UnitUnit 9
Paper typeAutomation business case
LengthAbout 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Business Administration
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MT437 Unit 9

1

A 5.7-Year Payback That Fails If Volume Drops a Fifth: An MT437 Unit 9 Automation Business Case for Vertical Lift Modules

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT437: Strategic Warehouse Management

Unit 9 Automation Business Case

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Lookout Parts Supply, the equipment quote and every cost and benefit are composite; the building lease assumption is stated up front, and the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingStating both the base result and the case that breaks it in the lead tells the reader the business case was tested.
2

The Lease Assumption

The building is leased through the end of the decade, and the company has no current use for floor space the machines would free. The base case therefore gives no credit for freed space. That assumption matters, and a later section shows how much the answer would change if the space were used.

Scope

The modules would hold about 4,200 slow-moving small parts, sensors, gaskets, bulbs and clips, now spread across fourteen shelving aisles at the back of the building. These parts generate about 1,020 order lines a night, roughly a quarter of all night picking. Each is picked rarely, but together they force pickers into fourteen aisles they would otherwise seldom visit.

A vertical lift module is a tall enclosed unit holding trays on both sides of a central lift. When an operator calls for a part, the lift brings the tray holding it to a window at waist height, so the parts come to the person instead of the person walking to the parts.

Costs

Three modules cost $516,000. Software and the interface to the warehouse system add $58,000, and installation $46,000. Total capital is $620,000.

Running costs are maintenance, energy and an allowance for downtime, about $29,100 a year. Refilling the modules, moving stock from receiving into trays, adds about $15,906 a year of labor beyond what shelf replenishment costs today.

Benefits

Picking those 1,020 lines on shelves runs at about 41 lines an hour, about 24.9 hours a night, because most of the time is walking down long aisles for one or two parts. At the modules, an operator picks about 130 lines an hour, about 7.8 hours a night. Over 300 nights, the saving is about 5,110 labor hours, worth about $123,141 at $24.10 an hour.

Picking errors fall as well. The modules light the exact compartment to pick from and confirm the quantity, and the company's error records suggest this would avoid about $30,294 a year in mis-picks, returns and store credits.

Net of refill labor and running costs, the annual benefit is about $108,429.

Payback and Net Present Value

At about $108,429 a year, the $620,000 pays back in about 5.7 years. Over a ten-year life, using 8 percent as the rate to discount future savings, the net present value is about $107,600, positive but modest. Brealey et al. (2020) recommend net present value over payback for decisions of this kind, since payback stops counting once the investment is recovered and gives a late saving the same weight as an early one; both are reported here because the owner asks for payback.

The machines earn their cost only if the small-parts volume holds; at four fifths of today's lines, they never do.

What this part is doingNaming the condition under which the case fails tells the owner what the decision really bets on.
3

Sensitivity to Volume

Volume is the input most likely to change, since the small-parts mix shifts as vehicle models age. If lines fell 20 percent, the annual benefit would fall to about $80,923, the payback would stretch to about 7.7 years and the net present value would fall below zero, to roughly minus $77,000. If lines rose 20 percent, the benefit would rise to about $135,934, the payback would shorten to about 4.6 years and the net present value would reach about $292,100.

Sensitivity to Wage Rates

If the loaded wage were $21 an hour rather than $24.10, the payback would lengthen to about 6.6 years. At $27, it would shorten to about 5.1. Rising wages make the case stronger over time, which the base case does not assume, so the base figures lean toward caution.

If the Freed Space Were Used

The fourteen aisles free about 7,000 square feet. If that space allowed the company to avoid leasing overflow storage at $5.90 a square foot, about $41,300 a year, the payback would shorten to about 4.1 years and the net present value would rise to about $384,700. The base case leaves this out because no such need exists today; it becomes relevant only if growth requires more space before the lease ends.

What the Operators Would Do

Picking at a module is different work. An operator stands at the window, the tray arrives, a light shows the compartment and quantity, and a scan confirms the pick. Two operators per shift would staff the three modules, replacing the pickers who now spend most of their time walking the fourteen back aisles. The work is less tiring but more repetitive, and the plan rotates operators between the modules and the floor to avoid strain and boredom.

Alternatives Considered

Two cheaper alternatives were considered. Re-slotting the slow parts more densely into fewer aisles would cut some walking for no capital, but the parts would still be spread over at least eight aisles. Moving them to a mezzanine would free floor space but add stair travel. Neither comes close to the modules' labor saving, but either could be done if the volume test fails.

Risks

A module failure would stop access to every part inside it, so the design spreads the fastest of the slow parts across all three units and keeps a manual override. Software integration with the warehouse system is the most common source of delay in such projects, and Azadeh et al. (2019) note that automated storage systems deliver their benefits only when their throughput is matched to the order profile. Frazelle (2016) adds that automation cases often fail because volume assumptions were optimistic.

What the Owner Is Being Asked to Decide

The decision is not whether the modules work, since they are well proven, but whether this building's slow-parts volume will stay high enough for long enough to repay them. That is a question about the business, not the machines. Store growth and the age of vehicles on the road both affect it, and the sales team's forecast for the next two years shows small-parts lines roughly flat. A flat forecast gives a positive but thin return, which is why the recommendation waits for two quarters of confirmation rather than approving now.

Recommendation

Approve the modules only if the next two quarters confirm small-parts volume at or above today's level, and revisit sooner if growth creates a need for the freed space, which would make the case clearly worthwhile.

What this part is doingMaking approval conditional on the volume test ties the decision to the assumption the case depends on.
4

References

Azadeh, K., De Koster, R., & Roy, D. (2019). Robotized and automated warehouse systems: Review and recent developments. Transportation Science, 53(4), 917-945. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2018.0873

Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2020). Principles of corporate finance (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Frazelle, E. H. (2016). World-class warehousing and material handling (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

The Purdue Global MT437 Unit 9 instructions

For MT437 Unit 9, an automation purchase is tested the way a finance committee would test it. Instructors expect the scope defined, capital and running costs listed, and benefits computed from the operation's own volumes and rates rather than a vendor's claims. Report payback alongside net present value, naming the discount rate and the years assumed. Key assumptions, such as whether freed space has value, should be stated up front, since they can change the answer. Sensitivity to volume and wage rates is commonly required, and the case should say at what volume the investment fails. Operational changes, alternatives and risks should be described. The recommendation may be conditional on confirming the most uncertain assumption.

How this MT437 Unit 9 example is built

The case states the lease assumption before anything else. Scope describes the slow parts and how a lift module works. Costs and benefits are computed from the building's own rates. Payback and net present value follow, citing Brealey and colleagues on why both are shown, under a highlighted line on the volume condition. Sensitivity to volume and wage rates is reported. A section shows how freed space would change the answer if it were needed. Another describes the operators' work and two cheaper alternatives. Risks cite Azadeh and colleagues and Frazelle on optimistic volume assumptions, and a section frames the owner's decision as a bet on volume. The recommendation waits for two quarters of volume data.

MT437 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points

Automation cases are graded on what the benefits are built from and how honestly their assumptions are tested. Benefits taken from a vendor brochure, rather than computed from the operation's own lines and rates, earn little. Rubrics reward both payback and net present value with stated rates and life. Credit goes to naming assumptions that could change the answer, such as freed space, and showing their effect. Sensitivity to volume that finds the failure point demonstrates judgment. Describing changes to work and considering cheaper alternatives shows completeness. A conditional recommendation tied to the most uncertain input scores well. A cost table, a benefit table, a cash flow and sensitivity grids support the case.

Common MT437 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most frequent weak automation case multiplies a vendor's productivity claim by the current wage bill and reports a short payback. Another common error counts freed floor space as a saving when the building has no use for it. Students often leave out refill labor, maintenance and downtime. Net present value is frequently skipped in favor of payback alone. Sensitivity is rarely tested, which hides how close the case sits to failing. Before submitting, rerun your case with volume 20 percent lower. If it fails, say so in the recommendation and name the condition under which the investment would be worth making.

Get an MT437 Unit 9 example written to your instructions

Pass along the equipment quote or cost figures the Unit 9 case contains, with the labor and volume data and the assignment rubric. We draft a composite business case that separates one-time from recurring costs, isolates any benefit depending on another decision, and tests payback against volume. The first custom sample is on us, finished in 24-48h. 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 MT437 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT437 Unit 9 questions, answered

Is payback enough, or do I need net present value?

Payback is easy to read but ignores money after the break-even point and the timing of cash. Net present value at a stated discount rate over the equipment's useful life captures both. Many cases expect both figures, payback for a quick sense and NPV for the decision. If your course has not covered discounting, say so and explain why payback alone is limited.

Which costs do automation cases most often leave out?

Maintenance contracts, software licenses or subscriptions, integration with the warehouse management system, training, and the labor to refill or tend the equipment. Downtime is another: when a machine stops, work reverts to a slower process. Listing recurring costs separately from the purchase price makes omissions harder and gives the grader a clear table to check.

How do I test sensitivity without complex software?

Change one assumption at a time in a spreadsheet and record the payback each time. Volume matters most, typically at 80 percent and 120 percent of the base case, followed by labor rate and any uncertain benefit. A small table of results shows the reader which assumptions the recommendation depends on, and that is usually what earns credit.

Where can I find a free MT437 Unit 9 sample paper?

This page carries the complete MT437 Unit 9 business case for three vertical lift modules holding 4,200 slow-moving small parts.

What breaks the business case in the MT437 Unit 9 sample?

A 20 percent fall in small-parts volume, which cuts the annual benefit to about $80,923 and turns the ten-year net present value negative.