Four options, one baseline: an Ohio pleating site clears both the cost and service tests in this MT498 Unit 5 alternatives analysis, while closing the warehouse fails on service. Searches like "mt 498 unit 5 assignment example", "mt498 unit 5 sample" and "mt498 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished MT498 Unit 5 alternatives analysis looks like
Six pages with a screening table at the center. Four columns: A, keep everything as it is; B, close the Columbus warehouse and ship east from Salina; C, move three of Salina's six pleating lines to a leased site in [Groveport, Ohio] and send media there directly; D, pay a [York, Pennsylvania] contract pleater [$26.95] a case, materials included. Rows give the first-cut cost to make and move a case, $30.40, $29.12, $28.68 and $29.77; projected fill rate, [93.1], [91.8], [97.6] and [95.4] percent; order cycle days; one-time cost; and capital against the [$2 million] ceiling. A pass-fail row applies the Unit 4 target, and only C passes both sides. Omissions from the first cut, carrying cost and Salina overhead among them, fill a final page.
How a MT498 Unit 5 example is structured
Options first, criteria second, screen third, then a short case for what goes forward. Each option gets a half-page description written so a plant manager would recognize it as something the company could actually do, including the do-nothing baseline, which is costed with the same care as the others because every saving is measured against it. Criteria come straight from the problem statement: the service target, the cost ceiling and the capital limit from the scope. The screening table applies them without weighting, since a failed constraint ends an option regardless of its score elsewhere. Option B's appeal is addressed directly, as the fastest payback on the page, bought with worse fill than today's. The closing section carries C into full costing, keeps B and D in the model as benchmarks, and names the rows still missing.
A baseline costed like a rival
Keeping the network unchanged is Option A, priced at $30.40 a case to make and move on current rates. Without it, the other three savings would have nothing honest to be measured from.
Options described in operating terms
Warehouse closure, a second pleating site, a contract pleater and no change are each written as a plant manager would see them: which lines move, which lease ends, which trucks stop running.
Screening against the Unit 4 target
Fill rate must reach 97.5 percent and landed cost must not rise. B fails the first test at [91.8] percent and D at [95.4]; C passes both on first-cut figures.
The payback that tempts
Closing Columbus saves $506,260 a year for [$390,000] in lease exit and racking, about nine months to recover. The page shows why that speed does not rescue it: the service target is a constraint, not a preference.
Rows the first cut omits
Carrying cost, duty, stockout cost and the Salina overhead that stays when three lines leave are listed for Unit 7. The analysis warns that the last of these works against C.
Where marks go in MT498 Unit 5
Alternatives analyses in MT498 are judged first on whether the options are real. A comparison between one sensible choice and two options nobody would fund proves little, and graders notice when the losing alternatives were built to lose. The do-nothing baseline is the next thing checked, since savings claimed without it have no reference point. Criteria should come from the problem statement rather than appear fresh, so an option cannot win on a measure nobody agreed. Applying a service constraint as a pass-fail test, not a weighted score, earns credit because it matches how a customer requirement actually works. A frequent weakness is presenting first-cut figures as final; naming what the first cut excludes, as the closing page here does, shows the writer knows the model is incomplete.
Get a MT498 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Which options does your project consider, and what cost and service numbers do you have for the current network? Add the Unit 5 instructions and rubric. We return a composite alternatives analysis with a costed baseline, a pass-fail screen and a list of rows still missing, free for the first custom sample, finished in 24-48h on most requests.
MT498 Unit 5 questions, answered
How many alternatives should the analysis include?
Three or four, one of them doing nothing, is common. Fewer makes the comparison thin; more usually means some are not realistic. Each should be something the organization could fund and staff within the scope's constraints. If your instructions specify a number, follow it, and make the do-nothing baseline one of the options whenever the prompt allows.
Should the analysis already pick the winner?
It should say which option goes forward to full costing and why, without claiming the final answer. First-cut figures leave out rows that can change a ranking, such as carrying cost or overhead that stays behind. Carrying two others forward as benchmarks keeps the later landed cost model honest about how close the result really is.
Can a contract manufacturer count as a network alternative?
Yes. Outsourcing a step changes which nodes and lanes exist just as much as moving a building does. The comparison must set the contractor's all-in price, including materials, against the company's own materials plus conversion, or the outsourced option will look cheaper or dearer than it really is.