Corvane's commission plan pays its hardware-heavy top seller $72,500 more than a colleague who sold more subscription, and the MT455 Unit 7 evaluation traces why. Searches like "mt 455 unit 7 assignment example", "mt455 unit 7 sample" and "mt455 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished MT455 Unit 7 incentive plan evaluation looks like
Five pages with two payout tables and a criteria matrix. The first page summarizes the plan as written: $200,000 target earnings at a 60/40 split, a $1.6 million annual quota counting hardware and first-year subscription alike, 5 percent commission to quota and 7.5 percent above it, no cap and no adjustment for discounts. Table one runs Seller A through it, $1.62 million of hardware at an average 19 percent discount plus $480,000 of subscription, for $117,500 of incentive pay. Table two runs Seller B, $350,000 of hardware and $550,000 of subscription, for $45,000. A criteria matrix then rates the plan on strategic alignment, discount control, motivation across performance levels, cost of sales and simplicity. A revised rate structure is tested on both sellers on the final page.
How a MT455 Unit 7 example is structured
The evaluation puts arithmetic before judgment. Both sellers are run through every term of the plan, so the reader sees each dollar's source before any criticism appears. Strong and weak performers are chosen deliberately, because a plan that looks sound at 100 percent of quota often behaves badly at either end. The matrix criteria come from the company's own strategy memo rather than a generic list, which is why strategic alignment carries the most weight. Three terms explain most of the gap: equal credit for hardware and subscription, an accelerator that applies to hardware, and no link between discount and pay, which let Seller A give away $380,000 of list price at no cost to himself. The revised test pays 8 percent on subscription and 2.5 percent on hardware, reduced for deep discounts, and narrows the gap to $18,050.
The plan as written
Target earnings, pay mix, quota definition, rates, accelerator, cap and payment timing are listed in one table. Anything the plan document leaves unclear, such as how multiyear subscriptions are credited, is marked as an assumption.
Seller A through the plan
At 131 percent of quota, the accelerator applies to $500,000 of bookings. Most of that excess is discounted hardware closed in the final month of the year, which the evaluation points out without accusing the seller of anything.
Seller B through the plan
At 56 percent of quota, Seller B earns $45,000 of incentive pay, despite booking $550,000 of subscription that will likely renew for years. The plan gives no credit for that future value.
Five criteria, weighted
Strategic alignment carries 35 percent, discount control 25, motivation across performance levels 20, cost of sales 10 and simplicity 10. The current plan scores well only on simplicity and cost of sales.
Testing a revised rate structure
Eight percent on first-year subscription and 2.5 percent on hardware, cut by up to a fifth for discounts above 15 percent, pay Seller A $70,800 and Seller B $52,750. The evaluation stresses that the rates still need calibration to target earnings.
Where marks go in MT455 Unit 7
Evaluations that describe a plan without running anyone through it tend to score low, because the behavior a design encourages only becomes visible in the payout arithmetic. At least two performance levels are expected, along with a product mix wherever the plan treats products differently. A design that credits every booking dollar the same way leaves discounting free to the seller, and an evaluation that never asks what a discount costs the seller has missed the obvious test. Credit follows criteria drawn from the company's strategy, weighted and applied consistently. Recommendations that jump to a new plan without testing it on the same sellers leave the reader unable to compare. Honest limits matter: a revised structure that changes target earnings without saying so, or that ignores sales cost, draws questions.
Get a MT455 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Your Unit 7 case probably supplies a plan and some sellers, or leaves the choice to you. Forward that case and its rubric. The custom evaluation tests the payout on a high and a low performer, weighs the design against strategy, tries a revision, and is written in 24-48h, with no charge for a first evaluation.
MT455 Unit 7 questions, answered
Why test the plan on both a top seller and a struggling one?
Because incentive plans often behave well near target and badly at the extremes. A strong performer shows what accelerators and caps do; a weak performer shows whether pay still encourages the right effort when quota looks out of reach. Comparing the two also reveals whether the plan rewards the behavior the company wants or simply rewards volume.
What criteria should an incentive plan evaluation use?
Common ones include alignment with company strategy, control over discounting or margin, motivation across performance levels, cost of sales, fairness and simplicity. Your textbook may offer its own list. Weight the criteria according to what the company is trying to achieve and explain the weights, since a plan can be simple and cheap yet still reward the wrong thing.
Do I need to propose a new plan?
Check the prompt. Many evaluations end with recommendations, and testing a revised structure on the same sellers makes those recommendations concrete. If you do propose changes, show the revised payouts and note what still needs calibrating, such as rates against target earnings. A recommendation without numbers is harder for a grader to judge.