A finished MGT-655 Topic 5 supply chain risk analysis example, with the chain mapped beyond tier one, concentration risk identified and disruption cost estimated. Searches like "mgt 655 topic 5 assignment example", "mgt655 topic 5 sample" and "mgt-655 topic 5 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-655 Topic 5 supply chain risk analysis looks like
The finished example looks past the suppliers the firm has contracts with. Tier one is mapped and then tier two, because two apparently independent suppliers frequently buy the same component from the same source, and that hidden concentration is where the real exposure sits. Each risk is sized by likelihood and by consequence rather than being listed, and the consequence is expressed in days of disruption and lost contribution rather than as severity. Sourcing decisions are then weighed as trades: single sourcing buys price and cooperation, dual sourcing buys resilience and costs margin. The example commits to a position and states what it is paying for it. Every exposure in the analysis carries a number rather than an adjective.
How an MGT-655 Topic 5 example is structured
The example maps, sizes, then decides. It opens with the product and identifies which components are genuinely critical to producing it. A second section maps tier one suppliers and then traces tier two for the critical components, which is where hidden concentration appears. A third identifies which risk categories are actually present here, covering supplier failure, geographic concentration, transport, demand shock and quality. A fourth sizes every one of them by likelihood and by consequence, expressed in days lost and money. A fifth evaluates the mitigation options available, dual sourcing, buffer stock, contractual terms and supplier development, with a cost attached to each. A closing section recommends a sourcing position and states plainly what resilience is costing and what exposure remains after the mitigation.
Tier two traced for critical parts
Two independent suppliers buying the same component from one source is where hidden concentration lives.
Consequence in days and money
A disruption sized as high severity cannot be weighed; one sized as eleven days of lost output can.
Sourcing treated as a trade
Single sourcing buys price and cooperation, dual sourcing buys resilience, and neither is free.
Mitigation costed, not listed
Buffer stock, second suppliers and contractual terms each carry a price that has to sit against the exposure.
Residual exposure stated
What remains after mitigation is named, since no supply chain is made safe and pretending otherwise misleads.
Where marks go in MGT-655 Topic 5
Mapping only tier one is the omission this topic is written to catch, since the concentration that causes most disruptions sits behind the suppliers a firm actually contracts with. A second failure is risks listed with severity labels rather than sized in days and money, which leaves them impossible to weigh against the cost of mitigation. Papers lose marks for recommending dual sourcing without pricing it, because resilience costs margin and volume leverage and the recommendation has to acknowledge that. Treating a supply chain as safe after mitigation overstates what any measure achieves. Risk registers with no owner and no trigger are documents rather than plans. Mitigation recommended with no owner attached leaves a plan nobody has agreed to execute.
Get an MGT-655 Topic 5 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-655 Topic 5 instructions and the rubric posted in your classroom, with the product and supply chain your section assigned. We write a custom example to those criteria, with tier two traced for critical components, consequences sized in days and money, mitigation costed and residual exposure stated, in 24 to 48 hours. The first is free.
MGT-655 Topic 5 questions, answered
Why map beyond my direct suppliers?
Because your direct suppliers may share theirs. Two vendors you deliberately chose for redundancy can both depend on a single component maker, one factory or one region, in which case you have paid for dual sourcing and hold single source risk. That hidden concentration causes a large share of real disruptions and it is invisible from tier one alone.
How do I size a supply risk?
In two dimensions and in units you can weigh. Likelihood can be qualitative where no data exists, but consequence should be quantified as days of disruption multiplied by the contribution lost per day, plus any expediting or penalty cost. That converts a risk register into something you can compare against the price of a second supplier, which is the decision the analysis exists to inform.
Is single sourcing always a mistake?
No, and treating it as one misses a real trade. Concentrating volume with one supplier buys better pricing, closer cooperation, joint development and priority when capacity is tight. It costs resilience. The right answer depends on how critical the component is and how quickly an alternative could be qualified, which is why the paper should decide rather than recite a preference.