| Course | MT498 Bachelor's Capstone in Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Alternatives analysis |
| Length | About 910 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 MT498 Unit 5
Four Options and an Honest Baseline: An MT498 Unit 5 Alternatives Analysis for Lowry Filter's Eastern Network
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT498: Bachelor's Capstone in Supply Chain Management
Unit 5 Alternatives Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Lowry Filter Company, the sites, the contract pleater and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Options
Option A keeps the network as it is: all six pleating lines in Salina, eastern volume trucked to the leased Columbus warehouse and delivered from there. It is costed with the same care as the others, because every saving is measured against it.
Option B closes the Columbus warehouse when its lease allows and ships eastern orders directly from Salina, holding extra finished stock at the plant. The warehouse's handling and storage charges disappear, but every eastern order travels from Kansas.
Option C moves three of Salina's six pleating lines to a leased building in Groveport, Ohio, near the current warehouse. Standard media goes there directly from the Hickory mill, about 430 miles, and premium media from Baltimore. The Ohio site makes eastern volume and holds its own finished stock, and the Columbus lease ends.
Option D keeps Salina unchanged for western volume but buys eastern filters from a contract pleater in York, Pennsylvania, at $26.95 a case including materials, shipped to the Columbus warehouse for delivery.
What Each Option Asks of the Company
The options differ in what they demand of managers as much as in cost. Option A asks nothing new. Option B asks the plant to hold and ship far more finished stock and the customer service team to promise longer lead times. Option C asks the most: a building to fit out, three lines to move, about 38 people to hire and train in Ohio, and a second plant manager. Option D asks the company to trust an outside pleater with its largest customers and to manage quality at arm's length. Writing these demands down keeps the cheapest-looking option from being chosen by someone who has not pictured running it.
Criteria
The criteria come from the problem statement and the scope, not from a general list. Eastern fill rate must reach 97.5 percent. Landed cost per eastern case must not rise above the baseline. Capital must stay under $2 million. Because each criterion is a constraint, the screen applies them without weights: an option that fails one is out, whatever it scores elsewhere.
First-Cut Figures
The first cut counts what each option costs to make and move a case: purchased materials, conversion, inbound freight, outbound freight and storage.
1. Option A: $30.40 a case; fill rate 93.1 percent; order cycle 4.2 days; one-time cost none.
2. Option B: $29.12 a case; fill rate 91.8 percent; order cycle 4.9 days; one-time cost $390,000.
3. Option C: $28.68 a case; fill rate 97.6 percent; order cycle 2.6 days; one-time cost $1,526,800.
4. Option D: $29.77 a case; fill rate 95.4 percent; order cycle 3.4 days; one-time cost $240,000.
The fill-rate projections come from replenishment lead time. Under Option C, an eastern order is replenished from a plant about a day away rather than five, and the safety stock needed for the same service falls accordingly; under Option B, every replenishment and every rush order starts in Kansas.
Screening
Option A fails the service test by definition. Option B fails it at 91.8 percent, worse than today. Option D fails it at 95.4 percent, since the contract pleater's minimum run sizes leave smaller items short. Option C passes both tests on first-cut figures and stays within the capital ceiling.
A failed service target is a constraint, not a preference, however fast the payback.
The Payback That Tempts
Option B needs a reply of its own, since on a cost sheet it looks like the obvious pick. Closing Columbus saves $1.28 a case on the first cut, about $506,880 a year, for $390,000 in lease exit and racking removal, a payback of about nine months. It fails because service would fall from 93.1 to 91.8 percent at an account that already penalizes Lowry for every short case. Chopra and Meindl (2016) note that removing a facility usually lowers facility cost and raises transportation and response time, and the screen shows that trade here.
What Goes Forward
Option C goes forward to full costing in Unit 7. Options B and D stay in the model as benchmarks, which lets the closing report place the winner against real rivals. Option A stays as the baseline.
Rows the First Cut Omits
Four costs are missing from the first cut, and one of them works against Option C. Carrying cost on inventory differs between options, since C holds less stock in the pipeline. Duty on imported premium media is the same for every in-house option but should appear. Stockouts have a cost, $11.40 a short case, that favors C strongly. And when three lines leave Salina, overhead that those lines used to absorb, supervision, maintenance and building costs, stays behind and must be spread over fewer cases. Simchi-Levi et al. (2008) warn that network studies which ignore fixed costs left behind at an old site overstate the savings of moving, and Unit 7 will add that row before any recommendation is made. Ellram (1995) makes the same point for purchasing decisions: the price paid is only one part of what a choice costs, and the parts left out are usually the ones that change the answer.
References
Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2016). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (6th ed.). Pearson.
Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(8), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510099928
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2008). Designing and managing the supply chain: Concepts, strategies, and case studies (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Reading the MT 498 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth unit of MT498 asks you to compare realistic network options against a do-nothing baseline. Describe each option in operating terms a plant manager would recognize, including what it asks of the company. Cost the baseline with the same care as the alternatives, since every saving is measured from it. Take your criteria from the problem statement and scope, and apply each constraint as a hurdle an option either clears or does not. Present first-cut figures for cost, service, order cycle and one-time cost in a table or list. Address the most tempting option directly, especially one that saves money while failing a constraint. Say which option goes forward to full costing and which stay as benchmarks, and list the cost rows your first cut leaves out.
Inside the MT498 Unit 5 example
Lowry's analysis describes four options, from keeping the network to buying eastern filters from a York pleater at $26.95 a case, then a section on what each asks of managers, from nothing to 38 hires and a second plant manager. Criteria come from the Unit 4 target and the capital ceiling. A four item list gives first-cut cost, fill rate, order cycle and one-time cost, followed by an explanation of how replenishment distance drives the fill projections. The screen passes only the Ohio site, under a highlighted line that a failed service target is a constraint. The warehouse closure's nine-month payback is answered with Chopra and Meindl. Omitted rows, including stranded Salina overhead, close the paper with Simchi-Levi and colleagues and Ellram.
Where the points sit in the MT498 Unit 5 rubric
Alternatives analyses are judged first on whether the options are real. A comparison between one sensible choice and two options nobody would fund proves little, and instructors notice when the losing alternatives were built to lose. The do-nothing baseline is checked next, since savings claimed without it have no reference point. Criteria should come from the problem statement rather than appear for the first time here. Treating constraints as pass or fail earns credit for discipline. Honest treatment of an attractive but failing option shows judgment. Listing the rows a first cut omits, especially one that works against the leading option, signals that the full model will not simply confirm a favorite. APA references support the reasoning throughout.
Common MT498 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many analyses compare a favored option with straw alternatives that no manager would consider, which makes the conclusion meaningless. Another common slip forgets the baseline, so savings float without a starting point. Students often weight criteria and let a high cost score rescue an option that fails the service target. The most tempting alternative is sometimes left unexamined because it complicates the story. First-cut tables frequently mix bases, some options with freight included and others without. Before submitting, describe each option in a way its plant manager would accept as feasible, put the baseline in the same table, check every option against each constraint separately, and name at least one omitted cost that could hurt your leading choice.
Get an 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. 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 MT498 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT498 Unit 1: Product Path Board Post
- MT498 Unit 2: Network Project Scope Proposal
- MT498 Unit 3: Current-State Network Map
- MT498 Unit 4: Fill Rate and Cost Problem Statement
- MT498 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT498 Unit 7: Total Landed Cost Model
- MT498 Unit 8: Risk and Resilience Assessment
- MT498 Unit 9: Implementation Phasing Plan
- MT498 Unit 10: Network Redesign Report
- MT497 Unit 5: 7S Data Collection Plan
- LI410 Unit 5: Conflict Case Reflection
- MT494 Unit 5: Segmentation and Targeting Brief
- MT102 Unit 5: Pricing Exercise
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.
Where can I find a free MT498 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MT498 Unit 5 analysis screening four network options for a composite filter maker against a costed do-nothing baseline.
Why does closing the warehouse fail in the MT498 Unit 5 sample?
It saves about $506,880 a year on the first cut, but every eastern order would ship from Kansas and fill rate would fall to 91.8 percent, below today's.