| Course | ISCOM 370 Strategic Supply Chain Management (ISCOM/370) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Strategic sourcing analysis |
| Length | about 1,111 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ISCOM 370 Week 2
Fabric, Frames and Mechanisms: A Strategic Sourcing Review for a North Carolina Sofa Maker
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
ISCOM/370: Strategic Supply Chain Management
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Catawba Ridge Furniture, its suppliers, spend and figures are composites written for a model paper.
Week 1 found that Catawba Ridge Furniture, a composite upholstered furniture maker in western North Carolina, runs one supply chain for two very different product lines. Sourcing is a large part of that chain: the company spends about $78 million a year with outside suppliers, about 56 percent of sales. Purchasing today is handled by three buyers who place orders, chase late shipments and negotiate price once a year. This paper reviews that spending and proposes a strategic sourcing approach.
From Purchasing to Sourcing
Kraljic (1983) argued that companies facing supply uncertainty must shift from purchasing, buying at the best price, to supply management, which classifies purchases, studies supply markets and builds strategies for each class. Monczka et al. (2016) describe strategic sourcing as a process that begins with spend analysis and moves through category strategy, supplier evaluation and selection, contracting and supplier relationship management. Catawba Ridge has done the buying but not the strategy.
Where the Money Goes
Fabric: $26.5 million, 34 percent; core fabric from two Chinese mills, custom fabric from about 40 mills.
Foam: $14 million, 18 percent; two regional producers.
Reclining mechanisms: $11 million, 14 percent; one factory in Vietnam.
Hardwood frames: $9.5 million, 12 percent; three local mills.
Packaging, hardware, thread and services: $17 million, 22 percent; more than 200 vendors.
Placing Categories on the Portfolio
Kraljic's matrix places each purchase on two scales, how much it affects profit and how exposed the buyer is to supply problems, and recommends a different approach for each quarter of the grid. Applied to Catawba Ridge:
Foam and core fabric are high-spend items with low supply risk. Several qualified suppliers exist, specifications are standard and switching is not hard. These categories reward competitive bidding and volume contracts, where the company's buying power can lower cost.
Reclining mechanisms are high in both profit impact and risk. They are costly, technically specific, used in 40 percent of products and bought from one factory. A four-week port delay last year idled the recliner line for nine days, costing about $1.2 million in lost sales. This category calls for a strategic approach: close relationship plus a backup source.
Custom fabrics are low in spend for each item but high in risk, since many come from small mills with long, uneven lead times. The goal here is to secure supply and reduce the number of unique items, as Week 1 recommended.
Packaging, hardware and services are low in both. They need simple, efficient buying, such as catalogs and purchasing cards, to save buyers' time.
A single factory in Vietnam controls whether 40 percent of the company's products can ship.
Total Cost, Not Unit Price
A domestic manufacturer in Tennessee has offered to supply reclining mechanisms at $68 each, against $61 from Vietnam, 11 percent more. Unit price alone favors Vietnam. A total cost comparison per mechanism tells a different story:
Vietnam: price $61, ocean freight and drayage $3.40, duties $2.20, safety stock carrying for eight weeks of extra cover $1.90, expediting and air freight averaged over the year $1.80, quality returns $0.70; total about $71.
Tennessee: price $68, truck freight $1.10, no duties, two weeks of cover $0.50, quality returns $0.40; total about $70.
Ellram (1995) set out a method for purchasing teams to count, beyond price, the full expense of buying, storing, using and finally retiring an item, and that firms using it often find that the lowest price is not the lowest cost. At Catawba Ridge the two sources are nearly equal in total cost, and the domestic option cuts lead time from twelve weeks to two.
Supplier Selection Criteria
For strategic categories the company will rate suppliers on quality record, delivery reliability, total cost, engineering support, financial health and willingness to share forecasts and capacity plans. For high-spend, low-risk categories, price and quality dominate. Each criterion will be weighted and scored by a team from purchasing, quality and operations.
Choosing Relationships
Dyer and Singh (1998) argued that firms can earn advantages from relationships with partners when each side commits money and effort that pay off only with this partner, swaps know-how, combines strengths that fit and settles disputes fairly, gains neither firm could earn alone. Such relationships cost time and trust, so they suit only a few suppliers. Catawba Ridge should build partnerships with the frame mill, whose engineering help could cut frame weight and freight, and with the Vietnamese mechanism maker, whose scale makes it the primary source. Krause et al. (2007) found that buying firms' supplier development efforts and commitment were linked to improvements in supplier performance, supporting investment in the frame mill.
Risks in the Plan
Moving 30 percent of mechanism volume to Tennessee could strain the relationship with the Vietnamese factory, which may raise prices on the remaining volume. The company will explain the change as risk management, not a judgment on quality, and offer a longer contract on the 70 percent. Volume commitments to the fabric mills reduce flexibility if core styles change; contracts will allow a 15 percent swing. Competitive bidding for foam may unsettle a supplier that has served the company for 20 years; the incumbent will be invited to bid and given the evaluation criteria in advance.
Who Does the Work
The three buyers will each take charge of categories rather than placing every kind of order: one for fabric, one for mechanisms and frames and one for foam and indirect items. Each will build a category plan, meet key suppliers quarterly and report savings and risk.
The Sourcing Plan
Foam: competitive bid between the two regional producers and one new entrant, aiming for 5 percent savings, about $700,000.
Core fabric: two-year contract with volume tiers, aiming for 6 percent savings.
Reclining mechanisms: qualify the Tennessee supplier for 30 percent of volume within nine months; keep Vietnam at 70 percent under a partnership with shared forecasts.
Frames: joint project with the main mill on lighter frame designs.
Indirect items: move to two distributors and purchasing cards, freeing about a third of buyers' time for category work.
Measures
Savings against baseline by category, supplier on-time delivery, defect rates, days of mechanism supply at risk and buyer hours spent on strategic work. The purchasing manager will report quarterly to the leadership team.
Conclusion
Catawba Ridge buys everything the same way, and that leaves it paying too much for routine items and exposed on the one part it cannot easily replace. Classifying spend by value and risk, comparing suppliers on total cost and choosing relationships to match each category turns purchasing into a strategic function that supports the company's two product lines.
References
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
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
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109-117.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.007
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2016). Purchasing and supply chain management (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
What the ISCOM 370 Week 2 instructions ask
The second ISCOM 370 paper centers on strategic sourcing. Students are often asked to explain how sourcing differs from routine purchasing, analyze an organization's spend, classify purchases by value and risk, evaluate make-or-buy and domestic-or-global choices, describe supplier selection criteria and recommend relationships suited to each category. Some versions add supplier development or risk mitigation. Use a real or realistic organization with spending figures, apply a portfolio or total cost model and support each judgment with supply chain research cited in APA. Close with how sourcing results will be measured over the coming year and who will report them.
How this ISCOM 370 Week 2 example is built
The model paper opens with a spend analysis: fabric is 34 percent of purchases, foam 18 percent, reclining mechanisms 14 percent, frames 12 percent and the rest packaging, hardware and services. Placing each category on a matrix of profit impact and supply risk shows that core fabric and foam are high-spend items with many capable suppliers, while reclining mechanisms come from a single Vietnamese factory, a serious risk. A total cost comparison shows that a domestic mechanism supplier priced 11 percent higher would cost about the same, or slightly less, once freight, duties, safety stock and expediting are counted. The paper recommends competitive bids for foam, an annual contract for core fabric, a second mechanism supplier and a development partnership with the frame mill.
ISCOM 370 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
Instructors reward sourcing papers that rest on spend data and a clear model. Strong work shows where the money goes, classifies categories by both value and supply risk and explains why each category deserves a different approach. Credit goes to total cost of ownership comparisons that count freight, duties, inventory, quality and risk rather than unit price alone, to supplier selection criteria tied to strategy and to relationship choices that range from arm's-length bidding to partnership. Graders also notice whether single-source risk is identified before it causes a shortage. A sourcing plan with owners, timing and measures and APA citations for research claims completes a strong paper.
ISCOM 370 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
Sourcing papers often treat every purchase the same way, usually by recommending the lowest bidder. Sort purchases first and match the approach to each group. Another frequent gap is comparing suppliers on unit price while ignoring freight, duties, inventory and quality costs, which can reverse the answer. Build a total cost comparison. Students also praise partnerships for every supplier; partnerships take time and suit only important, complex categories. Some papers ignore single-source risk until it appears in the news. Check for it. Finally, set measures such as savings, supplier on-time delivery and quality so the plan's effect is visible. A tutor can help you build a simple total cost table.
Related ISCOM 370 sample papers
Other ISCOM 370 week samples
- ISCOM 370 Week 1: Supply Chain Strategy
- ISCOM 370 Week 3: Goods and Service Operations
- ISCOM 370 Week 4: Logistics Integration
- ISCOM 370 Week 5: Sustainable Advantage Plan
More BS in Business sample papers
- HRM 420 Week 2: Workplace Health and Safety
- HRM 498 Week 2: Developing a Strategic HR Plan
- LDR 300 Week 2: Effective Leadership Behavior
- LDR 305 Week 2: Leadership Attributes and Styles
ISCOM 370 Week 2 questions, answered
What does ISCOM 370 Week 2 usually cover?
It usually covers strategic sourcing: spend analysis, classifying purchases by value and risk, total cost of ownership, supplier selection and choosing relationships with suppliers.
Where can I find a free ISCOM 370 Week 2 sample paper?
The Week 2 paper above reviews strategic sourcing for a North Carolina furniture maker and can be opened in full at no charge, with the margin comments.
What is the Kraljic purchasing portfolio?
A two-by-two grid that rates each purchase on its effect on profit and on how risky its supply is, giving four groups that each call for a different buying approach, from simple ordering to close partnership.
What is total cost of ownership in sourcing?
The full cost of acquiring and using a purchase, including price, freight, duties, inventory, quality problems, administration and risk, not only the unit price.
When should a company partner closely with a supplier?
When the purchase is important to profits and hard to replace, and when both sides can gain from sharing information, investing together and improving over time.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All ISCOM 370 week samples · All courses