| Course | MT438 Analytics in the Digital Supply Chain |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Visibility technology brief |
| Length | About 980 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 MT438 Unit 7
A Day's Warning Is Worth Buying: An MT438 Unit 7 Visibility Technology Brief on Three Tracking Options
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT438: Analytics in the Digital Supply Chain
Unit 7 Visibility Technology Brief
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Oakhurst Lawn and Garden, its retail account, the vendors' prices and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Problem
Oakhurst Lawn and Garden shipped 1,480 loads to its home-improvement account between March and August 2026. The retailer's scorecard records 312 failed deliveries: 128 late, 34 early, 96 short and 54 with paperwork errors. Fines totaled $286,400: $1,000 for each late load, $800 for each early load, $500 for each paperwork error and $104,200 for short shipments, which are fined by the missing case.
Tracking can help with only two of these four causes. Short shipments and paperwork errors, 150 of the 312 failures and $131,200 of the fines, happen before the truck leaves the dock. No information about a truck's position in transit changes a missing pallet or a wrong bill of lading, so this brief removes them from every benefit estimate below.
What a Dispatcher Would Do With Warning
The retailer allows a supplier to rebook a delivery appointment without penalty if it gives at least 24 hours' notice. A dispatcher who learns a day ahead that a truck will miss its window can rebook and avoid the late fine. A dispatcher who learns that a truck is running early can hold it at a truck stop. Warning that arrives after the 24-hour point changes nothing, so every option below is judged by how early its signal comes, not by how much data it produces. Barratt and Oke (2007) argue that visibility creates value only when the information shared is timely and usable for a specific decision, which is the standard used here.
Three Options
A carrier connection platform links to the tracking systems that larger carriers already run in their trucks and reports each load's position and estimated arrival. It costs $12,000 to set up and $3.10 a load, charged on all of Oakhurst's roughly 9,600 loads a year. Its weakness is coverage: smaller regional carriers cannot connect, so the platform reaches only about 71 percent of the retail account's loads.
Reusable cellular trackers are small devices placed on one pallet of each load. They report position several times an hour regardless of carrier. Four hundred trackers cost about $26,000 to buy. Running them costs about $26,700 a year: $14,400 in data plans at $3 a month each, about $3,900 to replace roughly 60 lost units, and about $8,400 in postage to return trackers from the retailer's distribution centers.
RFID pallet tags are read when a pallet passes a reader at a dock door. They confirm that goods arrived, which is useful for receiving, but they say nothing about where a truck is between Oakhurst's dock and the retailer's. Sarac et al. (2010) describe RFID's main supply chain benefits as inventory accuracy and faster receiving, not transit warning. RFID is therefore set aside here, because the fines turn on what happens before the door.
Estimating the Benefit
The benefit estimate rests on two labeled assumptions. First, from the carrier's own delay records, about 58 percent of late loads had a delay that was knowable at least 24 hours before the appointment, such as a late pickup, a weather hold or a breakdown. Second, rebooking is assumed to avoid the fine in 75 percent of those cases, since a new appointment is not always available. Early loads are assumed to be detectable in time, and holding a truck is assumed to work at the same 75 percent rate.
Under these assumptions, trackers on every load to the retailer would avoid about $76,080 a year in fines: 75 percent of 58 percent of $128,000 in late fines, plus 75 percent of $27,200 in early fines. The platform, reaching 71 percent of loads, would avoid about $54,000.
With a day's warning on every load, about $76,000 a year in fines becomes avoidable; with 71 percent coverage, about $54,000.
Costs Over Two Years
Over two years, the trackers cost about $79,500, purchase plus two years of running cost, against about $152,200 in avoided fines, a net benefit of roughly $72,700. The platform costs about $71,500, setup plus two years of per-load fees, against about $108,000 avoided, a net benefit of about $36,500. The trackers win because they cover every load and because their running cost does not scale with loads to other customers.
Testing the Assumptions
Both assumptions could be wrong. If only 40 percent of delays are knowable a day ahead and rebooking succeeds only half the time, with early holds also succeeding half the time, the trackers avoid about $39,200 a year, and over two years they roughly break even against their cost. The platform loses about $15,900 over two years in the same case. The recommendation therefore does not rest on a rollout. It rests on a test.
Recommendation
Oakhurst should pilot reusable cellular trackers on every load to the home-improvement account for one spring season, March through June 2027. Before the pilot starts, it should agree on three measures: the share of late loads flagged at least 24 hours ahead, the share of flagged loads successfully rebooked and late and early fines per hundred loads compared with spring 2026. If fines fall by at least half the estimated amount, the program should continue and extend to the next-largest account. If they do not, Oakhurst can end the data plans and move the trackers to its own trailers running between Decatur and Macon, limiting the loss to the season's running cost. Waller and Fawcett (2013) hold that the worth of analytics in a supply chain shows in the decisions it changes, and the pilot is built to measure exactly that: how many appointments were rebooked because a tracker spoke first.
References
Barratt, M., & Oke, A. (2007). Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: A resource-based theory perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1217-1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.003
Sarac, A., Absi, N., & Dauzère-Pérès, S. (2010). A literature review on the impact of RFID technologies on supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.039
Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12010
Reading the MT 438 Unit 7 instructions
The Unit 7 brief in MT438 evaluates technology for supply chain visibility against a specific business problem. Start with the problem in figures, such as fines, expedited freight or lost sales, and separate the causes technology could affect from those it could not. Name the decision earlier information would change and the deadline by which it must arrive to matter. Then describe each option by when its signal comes, how much of the operation it covers and what it costs to buy and run. Benefits should be built from the problem's cost in steps, with each assumption labeled. Test those assumptions at less favorable values. Costs should cover at least two years. A recommendation often takes the form of a pilot with measures agreed before it starts. Five or so pages suit a manager's attention, with figures in a table where possible.
How this MT438 Unit 7 example is built
Oakhurst's brief opens with the retailer's scorecard and removes the 150 dock-side failures from every estimate. The next section names the decision, rebooking an appointment at least 24 hours ahead, with Barratt and Oke on visibility that serves a decision. The three options follow, the platform with its coverage gap, the trackers with their running costs itemized and RFID set aside with Sarac and colleagues because it reads only at the door. Benefits are built in two labeled steps, 58 percent of delays knowable in time and 75 percent rebooking success, and a highlighted sentence gives the avoidable fines for each option. Two-year costs compare the options. A sensitivity section lowers both assumptions and finds the trackers roughly breaking even. The brief recommends a spring 2027 tracker pilot with three measures agreed in advance, closing on Waller and Fawcett.
Where the points sit in the MT438 Unit 7 rubric
Graders give the decision priority over the device in technology briefs for this course. Papers that start with features and never say what a manager would do differently lose most of the analysis points. Separating what technology can and cannot affect is credited heavily, because it keeps the benefit estimate honest. Benefits built from the cost of the problem with labeled assumptions earn more than vendor claims. Testing the assumptions at lower values shows judgment, especially when the test changes the recommendation from purchase to pilot. Costs should include running costs over time, not only the purchase. A pilot recommendation is rewarded when its measures and baseline are defined in advance. Clear structure, a short options comparison and figures a reader can check make the brief easy to grade. Purdue Global expects sources on visibility and the technology itself, cited in APA format.
MT438 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Most weak Unit 7 briefs read like product brochures, describing what RFID or GPS can do without a problem to solve. A frequent error counts every failure as avoidable, including short shipments and paperwork errors that no tracking device can touch. Students often confuse RFID with real-time tracking. Benefit figures tend to appear without the assumptions behind them, so the grader cannot judge how optimistic they are. Running costs, such as data plans, lost devices and return postage, are commonly left out. Some briefs recommend a full rollout when the numbers only support a test. Before submitting, list every assumption your benefit estimate depends on and lower each one to a value you would not be embarrassed to defend. If the recommendation survives, say so. If it does not, a pilot is probably the honest answer.
Get an MT438 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Sum up the Unit 7 case's central problem, attach its cost or performance data, and add the rubric. The composite brief we write starts from the decision earlier information would change, compares tracking options on timing, coverage and running cost, and estimates benefit from stated assumptions. You pay nothing for the opening custom sample; allow 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 MT438 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT438 Unit 1: Supply Chain Data Inventory Post
- MT438 Unit 2: Order Data Quality Audit
- MT438 Unit 3: Supply Chain Metrics Exercise
- MT438 Unit 4: Operations Dashboard Critique
- MT438 Unit 5: Grass Seed Forecast Accuracy
- MT438 Unit 6: Production Cut Seminar Reflection
- MT438 Unit 8: Root Cause Analysis
- MT438 Unit 9: Predictive Model Evaluation
- MT438 Unit 10: Analytics Recommendation Memo
- MT437 Unit 7: Labor Productivity Study
- MT436 Unit 7: Negotiation Plan
- MT435 Unit 7: Facility Layout Proposal
- MT434 Unit 7: Third-Party Logistics Evaluation
MT438 Unit 7 questions, answered
How do I estimate the benefit of better visibility?
Start with the cost of the problem, such as fines, expedited freight or lost sales, then estimate what share of it earlier information could prevent. That usually needs two assumptions: how often a problem was knowable in time, and how often acting on it succeeds. State both, and show the result at lower values so a reader sees how sensitive the case is.
Is RFID the same as real-time tracking?
No. RFID tags are read when they pass a reader, typically at dock doors or gates, so they confirm that goods reached a point. Real-time tracking uses GPS with cellular reporting, or a carrier's own telematics, to report location in transit. A brief should match the technology to where in the chain the information is needed.
Should the brief recommend a pilot?
Often that is the most defensible recommendation, especially when benefits rest on assumptions. Define what will be measured, over what period and against what baseline, so the pilot can confirm or refute the estimate. A pilot with no stated measures reads as indecision. If your prompt asks for a full recommendation, a pilot can still be the first phase.
Where can I find a free MT438 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full MT438 Unit 7 brief appears on this page, comparing a carrier platform, cellular trackers and RFID for a composite lawn products maker's retail deliveries.
How much does the MT438 Unit 7 sample expect trackers to save?
About $76,080 a year in avoided late and early fines under its stated assumptions, falling to about $39,200 when both assumptions are lowered.