| Course | OPM-4200 Supply Chain Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 case assignment: supply chain design |
| Length | About 574 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S.B.A. in Operations Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for OPM 4200 Module 3
Near the Market or Near the Parts? Redesigning Where E-Bikes Are Assembled
Student Name
B.S.B.A. in Operations Management, Thomas Edison State University
OPM-4200: Supply Chain Management
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Near the Market or Near the Parts? Redesigning Where E-Bikes Are Assembled
The Design Question
Labor costs in Bordentown have risen 20 percent in three years, and the plant will reach capacity within eighteen months as sales grow. Module 1 concluded that the commuter model needs an efficient supply chain and the performance line a responsive one. The design question is where each should be assembled.
The Options
Fawcett et al. (2007) describe supply chain design as decisions about the structure of the network, which activities the firm performs itself, where facilities sit and how materials flow, made to support the competitive strategy. I estimated unit cost to the U.S. market for the commuter model, including parts, assembly labor, freight and duties, and the lead time from order to U.S. warehouse.
For the performance line, unit costs follow the same pattern, but the value of speed is much higher, because each week of lead time adds forecast error on a product whose demand changes with every review.
| Option | Unit cost, commuter model | Lead time to U.S. warehouse | Flexibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bordentown (current) | $1,180 | 1 week | High |
| Monterrey, company plant | $1,095 | 2 weeks by truck | Moderate |
| Taiwan, contract assembler | $1,060 | 6 to 7 weeks by ocean | Low |
The Triple-A Framework
Lee (2004) argued that the best supply chains are agile, responding quickly to short-term changes in demand or supply; adaptable, adjusting their design as markets and strategies change; and aligned, creating incentives for partners to improve the performance of the chain as a whole. Cost alone does not capture these qualities.
| Option | Agility | Adaptability | Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bordentown | High | Limited by capacity | Full control |
| Monterrey | Good; truck access to U.S. | Good; room to grow | Full control |
| Taiwan contractor | Poor; ocean lead time | Contractor's capacity | Contractor's incentives may differ |
Analysis
For the commuter model, Taiwan offers the lowest unit cost, but its six-week lead time and the loss of control matter less for a functional product with stable demand. Even so, Monterrey's cost is only $35 higher, it ships by truck in two weeks and it gives the company control of quality and a site that can grow. The USMCA, the North American trade agreement, can reduce duties on bikes that meet its rules of origin, which our customs broker estimates the commuter bike can satisfy with Mexican assembly and a North American battery pack. Christopher and Holweg (2011) argue that supply chains designed only for low cost in a stable world have become fragile, and that firms should build in structural flexibility. Monterrey offers more of it than Taiwan.
For the performance line, speed is worth more than any labor saving. Keeping its assembly in Bordentown preserves the one-week response that Module 1's responsive chain needs.
Recommendation
Move commuter assembly to a company-run plant in Monterrey over eighteen months, which frees Bordentown capacity for the growing performance line. Keep performance assembly, design and final testing in Bordentown. Review the Monterrey plant's costs after two years against a Taiwan contract quote, to keep the decision honest.
Risks
The main risks are startup quality problems in Monterrey, changes in trade policy and security of truck routes. A six-month overlap, in which both plants build commuter bikes, guards against the first, and a second customs broker reduces exposure to the others.
Conclusion
A split design, efficient assembly near the U.S. market for the functional product and responsive assembly at home for the innovative one, fits the strategy better than any single location.
References
Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2011). "Supply chain 2.0": Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101439
Fawcett, S. E., Ellram, L. M., & Ogden, J. A. (2007). Supply chain management: From vision to implementation. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lee, H. L. (2004). The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 102-112.
What the OPM 4200 Module 3 instructions ask for
The Module 3 case covers supply chain design. Expect to evaluate options for the structure of a supply chain, such as where to locate production or whether to outsource it, using cost, lead time, flexibility and strategic fit. Compare options in a table and apply a design framework such as the triple-A supply chain. Explain how the design supports the firm's strategy, and name the risks of the option you recommend along with how to manage them. Compare at least three options, including the current design, and estimate unit cost and lead time for each from the case data or reasonable assumptions you state. State your cost assumptions plainly.
How this OPM 4200 Module 3 example is built
The paper sets out the design question and its link to the strategy from Module 1. A table compares three options on unit cost, lead time and flexibility, and a second table rates them on agility, adaptability and alignment. An analysis section weighs cost against speed, control and resilience, with research on fragile supply chains, and treats the two products separately. The paper ends with a recommendation, risks and a conclusion. The analysis treats the commuter and performance products separately, recommending a different location for each, and a review clause keeps the decision open to a future contract quote. A second table rates each option on agility, adaptability and alignment, making the qualitative comparison as visible as the cost comparison.
Where the marks sit in the OPM 4200 Module 3 rubric
Mentors grade this case on correct use of design concepts, a balanced comparison of options, link to strategy, a reasoned recommendation and clear writing. Papers that weigh cost against agility and resilience, rather than choosing the cheapest option, show understanding of design. Treating different products differently demonstrates strategic thinking. Naming risks and a way to manage them shows that the recommendation is realistic. A design that treats each product according to its needs, and builds in a review, shows strategic flexibility. Rating options on agility, adaptability and alignment demonstrates use of the framework. Recognizing trade rules and their effect on cost shows attention to the global context of design. Each option gets fair treatment.
Common OPM 4200 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose points by comparing locations on labor cost alone, by ignoring lead time and control or by recommending one design for all products. Others leave out risk. Compare total unit cost, lead time and flexibility. Apply a design framework. Match the design to each product's needs. Name the risks and how you would manage each one. Treat products with different demand differently, and plan a review of your choice after a set period. Remember that trade rules and duties can change the cost ranking of locations. A free first sample on your own OPM-4200 supply chain design case is available on request.
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 Thomas Edison State University 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.
More OPM 4200 and B.S.B.A. in Operations Management sample papers
- OPM 4200 Module 1: Case Assignment: Two Supply Chains for Two Kinds of E-Bike
- OPM 4200 Module 2: Case Assignment: Mapping the Order-to-Delivery Process for Dealer Orders
- OPM 4200 Module 4: Case Assignment: Total Cost of Ownership and a Leaner Supplier Base
- OPM 4200 Module 5: Case Assignment: Taming the Bullwhip With Dealer Data
- OPM 4200 Module 6: Case Assignment: Measures, People and Innovation in the E-Bike Supply Chain
- APS 4020 Module 7: Written Assignment: Control Charts for Bagel Bag Weights
- OPM 3010 Module 2: Written Assignment: Designing a Direct-to-Cafe Bread Service
- OPM 4150 Module 2: Written Assignment: Truckload, LTL or Intermodal From Chicago?
OPM 4200 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free OPM 4200 Module 3 sample paper?
The case above weighs New Jersey, Mexico and Taiwan as assembly sites for an e-bike maker.
What is the triple-A supply chain?
Lee's framework holding that the best supply chains are agile, adaptable and aligned.
What is near-shoring?
Moving production to a nearby country, such as Mexico for the U.S. market, to balance cost with speed and control.
Why might the lowest-cost location be the wrong choice?
Long lead times, less control and less flexibility can cost more than the savings, especially for products with uncertain demand.
What does supply chain design decide?
Which activities the firm performs, where facilities are located and how materials flow through the network.