WGU D472 Task 1: Complete Guide – Autojor Manufacturing Supply Chain Disruption

Updated on: Aug 27, 2026

WGU D472 Task 1 is a 10 to 15-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you analyze a real supply chain disruption at Autojor Manufacturing (AJM), evaluate three proposed solutions using qualitative and quantitative data from the case study and Excel supporting data, and recommend one solution to senior leadership with a data-backed justification.

This guide for 21st Century Operations and Supply Chain D472 gives you the exact slide structure, every rubric requirement written out, all the critical data points from the case study and Excel file, and a reference table of seven APA 7-formatted sources ready to cite. Follow this sequence and you will not miss a rubric item.

Need a custom D472 Task 1 PowerPoint built from the Autojor case study? WhatsApp us at +1 564-544-6924.

Also see: WGU C216 Task 1 Investor Presentation Guide | WGU C216 Task 2 Stockholder Report Guide

D472 Task 1 Assignment

Introduction

Even in its simplest form, supply chain management is a complex process with many moving parts. However, over the past several years, supply chain management has been undergoing an evolution fueled by complex and intertwined domestic and global factors, such as political upheaval, economic stresses, legislative changes, changing technology, natural disasters, and health crises. These factors pose risks to a business’s supply chain resilience, increasing the potential for significant disruptions to its business operations.

Scenario

You are a consultant for a company that recently experienced an operation and supply chain disruption. You are tasked with analyzing relevant qualitative and quantitative data related to the company’s operation and supply chain disruption and evaluating possible solutions to the problem. You will also recommend a solution for long-term risk mitigation and supply chain viability to the senior leadership team.

See the attached “D472 Task 1 Case Study” and “D472 Task 1 Supporting Data” in the Supporting Documents section for additional information and data.

A.  Create a multimedia presentation (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote) (suggested length of 10-15 slides) to present your evaluation of the company’s operation and supply chain disruption to the company’s senior leadership team. The multimedia presentation must include each of the following:

•   a title slide that contains the title of the presentation and your name

•    content slides that contain an illustration of the company’s operation and supply chain disruption (see part B), your evaluation of solutions to the operational and supply chain problem (see part C), and presenter notes for each slide

Note: Presenter notes for each slide must be included to fully cover the level of explanation, analysis, and discussion necessary.

•   a conclusion slide that contains a solution recommendation for the company’s long-term supply chain management (see part C2)

B.  Within the multimedia presentation, illustrate the company’s operation and supply chain disruption and the steps taken to resolve it, using relevant details from the attached “D472 Task 1 Case Study,” by doing the following:

1.   Describe the disruption the company experienced, including the supply chain disruption risk classification.

2.   Identify two external risks that impacted the company.

a.   Explain how one of the external risks identified in part B2 impacted the company.

3.   Identify two internal risks that impacted the company, using relevant details from the case study.

a.   Explain how one of the internal risks identified in part B3 impacted the company.

4.   Explain how the disruption impacted the company’s daily operations, using the data provided in the attached “D472 Task 1 Case Study” and “D472 Task 1 Supporting Data.”

5.   Explain how the company demonstrated resilience.

6.   Explain how the company recovered from the disruption.

C.  Within the multimedia presentation, evaluate the three solutions to the operational and supply chain problem from the attached “D472 Task 1 Case Study,” using relevant details and qualitative and quantitative data analysis, by doing the following:

1.   Evaluate the effectiveness of the three solutions to the company’s operational and supply chain problem, using qualitative and quantitative data analysis, by doing the following:

a.   Describe three strengths of each solution.

b.   Describe two weaknesses of each solution.

c.   Explain how the qualitative and quantitative data from the case study were used to inform the solutions.

2.   Recommend one solution for the company to move forward with for long-term risk mitigation and supply chain viability.

a.   Justify your recommendation from part C2.

D.   Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

What WGU D472 Task 1 Requires

The D472 Task 1 WGU assignment has three parts:

Part A, Multimedia Presentation: A 10 to 15-slide PowerPoint (or Keynote) with a title slide, content slides covering Parts B and C, presenter notes on every slide, and a conclusion slide.

Part B, Illustrating the Disruption (Slides 2 to 7):

• B1: Describe the disruption and risk classification
• B2 + B2a: Two external risks; explain how one impacted the company
• B3 + B3a: Two internal risks; explain how one impacted the company
• B4: Operational impact using data from the case study and Excel file
• B5: How the company demonstrated resilience
• B6: How the company recovered

Part C, Evaluating Solutions (Slides 8 to 13):

• C1a: Three strengths of each solution
• C1b: Two weaknesses of each solution
• C1c: How qualitative and quantitative data informed the solutions
• C2 + C2a: One recommended solution with data-backed justification

Part D: APA 7 in-text citations and a reference list.

Always confirm requirements against your current WGU rubric. Requirements can vary between term versions.

D472 Task 1 PowerPoint: Slide-by-Slide Structure

Build this structure before writing any content. Assessors expect a logical flow from context through analysis through recommendation.

Part B: Illustrating the Disruption

B1 – Describe the Disruption and Risk Classification

Slide content (summary): Fire at AJM’s sole-source supplier. Risk classification: supply-side operational disruption.

Presenter notes (write this): A fire at AJM’s sole-source supplier in Houston, Texas caused a complete manufacturing shutdown, resulting in a shortage of small metal gears critical to AJM’s automotive electronic component production. This is a supply-side operational disruption with catastrophic characteristics, low probability, high impact. The supplier provided 100% of a key input, making this a single-point-of-failure event. Katsaliaki et al. (2022) classify this as a high-impact, low-probability disruption resulting from supplier concentration risk. Production declined 100% within three weeks of the disruption.

B2 + B2a – Two External Risks (Explain One)

External risks originate outside the organization’s control.

External Risk 1, Facility Fire at the Houston Supplier An environmental and catastrophic event entirely outside AJM’s control. It caused an immediate shutdown of the only source for small metal gears, triggering a complete component shortage.

B2a Impact: The fire caused AJM’s component inventory to decline to zero across multiple product lines within weeks. The finished goods inventory graph shows all four product lines (Elecktore, Lexiplus, Cadallia, OEM) declining sharply beginning in early March 2023. OEM production stopped immediately. AJM incurred expedited freight costs and risked contract penalties with Cadallia.

External Risk 2, Media and Social Media Misinformation The case study states that “multiple news sources and social media outlets added to the uncertainty with a range of opinions, many of which were based more on emotions than on facts.” This is an external reputational and informational risk that impacted employee morale and created internal uncertainty about the company’s long-term viability.

B3 + B3a – Two Internal Risks (Explain One)

Internal risks originate inside the organization.

Internal Risk 1, Single-Source Supplier Dependency AJM relied on one supplier in Houston for 100% of a key component. This procurement decision eliminated any supply redundancy, making a single supplier event catastrophic.

Internal Risk 2, Absence of a Crisis Leader and Slow Emergency Response The case study explicitly states “there was no clear-cut leader for the response” and “it took two days to assemble a team.” This is an internal governance and operational risk.

B3a Impact: The 2-day delay meant AJM had less time to secure alternative supply sources, engage expedited carriers, or identify substitutions before customer stock-out thresholds were reached. For Cadallia, this contributed to the one disruption that occurred and the potential for contract penalties.

B4 – Operational Impact Using Data

This is where most D472 Task 1 submissions lose points. You must cite specific data from both the case study and the Excel supporting data file. Include all of the following in your presenter notes:

• Production volumes dropped 100% within three weeks of the disruption
• OEM production was stopped immediately; subassembly materials were reassigned to protect named customer accounts
• Elecktore finished goods began at approximately 12,000 units and dropped to approximately 2,000 by mid-April 2023
• Lexiplus inventory declined from approximately 8,000 to under 2,000 units over the same period
• Cadallia inventory fell below its min-max floor of 3,000 units
• Component LC879 was completely depleted by March 6, 2023, the yellow line disappears from the components graph after this date
• Component LC878 (blue line) showed the most resilience, rebounding in late April as supplier restart began
• AJM incurred unplanned expedited freight costs during the recovery window
• Only Cadallia experienced an actual product disruption; Elecktore and Lexiplus were protected by existing min-max levels

B5 – Resilience Demonstrated

Include these specific actions on the slide and expand in the presenter notes:

• Immediately contacted alternative suppliers to reduce single-source dependency in the short term
• Engaged expedited carrier services to accelerate incoming components once supplier restart began
• Reviewed potential component substitutions to maintain production where possible
• Leveraged the existing ERP system with barcode scanning and EDI customer communications to monitor inventory in real time
• Increased proactive communication with Cadallia, Lexiplus, and Elecktore to manage expectations

B6 – Recovery from Disruption

• Finished goods inventory graph shows a rebound beginning in late April 2023, with Elecktore recovering to approximately 4,000 units and Lexiplus recovering to approximately 3,500 units by May 8, 2023
• Component inventory graph (LC345, LC878, LC543) also shows recovery beginning in late April, with LC878 returning to approximately 9,500 units
• Supplier restart was coordinated with different time-frame scenarios, assessed for risk factors
• Min-max inventory levels were restored progressively as production resumed

Part C: Evaluating All Three Solutions

Solution 1: Multisource Supply Chain

Strength 1, Eliminates Single-Point-of-Failure Risk The entire disruption stemmed from 100% dependence on one supplier. Multisourcing directly addresses this root cause by distributing supply across three geographically dispersed U.S. suppliers. If one fails, production can shift to others without a complete shutdown.

Strength 2, Cost Leverage Through Competition With multiple suppliers competing for AJM’s business, AJM gains bargaining power that can reduce unit costs over time. The case study notes that “competition among suppliers could provide more bargaining power that allows for cost savings.”

Strength 3, Scalability and Market Flexibility The case study notes AJM can “design multiple supply chains that work together to serve different segments of their customer base based on different markets.” This supports future growth without requiring major capital investment.

Weakness 1, Increased Supplier Management Complexity Managing three suppliers multiplies procurement administration, quality control audits, contract negotiations, and logistics coordination. This adds overhead cost and requires dedicated supplier relationship management capabilities AJM may not currently have.

Weakness 2, Does Not Reduce Min-Max Inventory Levels This solution does not address leadership’s concern that existing min-max levels tie up capital. AJM would still need to carry significant buffer inventory because it remains dependent on external sourcing.

Solution 2: 3D Printing

Strength 1, Significant Cost Reduction with Clear Payback The quantitative data shows a 28% unit cost reduction ($14.50 to approximately $10.44 per unit), yielding $4,285,736 in annual savings plus $91,000 in freight reduction, for total annual savings of $4,376,736. Against a total investment of $18,730,000, the payback period is 4.3 years, a concrete, data-supported financial case.

Strength 2, Supply Chain Independence By producing components in-house, AJM eliminates dependency on any external supplier for this key part. Future disruptions at supplier facilities become irrelevant, and AJM can modulate production in real time.

Strength 3, Expansion Opportunity The 100,000 sq. ft. facility is designed for 12 continuous 3D printers but only 6 are needed to meet current demand. The remaining capacity can support new product lines, new customers, or new markets, generating revenue beyond the payback calculation.

Weakness 1, Highest Upfront Capital Requirement At $18,730,000 total investment (6 machines at $625,000 each + $14,980,000 construction + $1,250,000 annual staffing), this is by far the most capital-intensive option. Financing this level of investment requires confident demand projections over a multi-year horizon.

Weakness 2, 9-Month Construction Lead Time Leaves Near-Term Vulnerability During the construction period, AJM remains fully dependent on its existing supplier and is just as vulnerable to another disruption. This solution does not address the immediate or near-term risk.

Solution 3: Third-Party Inventory Warehouse Integration

Strength 1, Lowest Implementation Cost and Fastest Deployment No capital construction or major asset investment required. A third-party warehouse partner can be engaged through contract, making this the most capital-efficient path to increased supply chain resilience.

Strength 2, Expert Inventory Optimization Reduces Capital Tied Up A specialized third-party logistics (3PL) provider has expertise in inventory management at scale. Using their systems and economies of scale, AJM can optimize its min-max levels and reduce the working capital currently tied up in safety stock, directly addressing a concern raised by leadership.

Strength 3, Multi-Supplier Diversification Without Internal Procurement Burden A 3PL warehouse can source from multiple suppliers on AJM’s behalf, providing supplier diversification without AJM needing to manage multiple supplier relationships internally.

Weakness 1, Dependency on Third-Party Performance AJM’s supply chain resilience becomes partially dependent on the 3PL’s reliability and financial stability. If the 3PL experiences its own disruption, AJM faces a proxy version of the same risk it is trying to mitigate.

Weakness 2, No Reduction in Unit Production Cost Unlike Solution 2 (which yields a 28% unit cost reduction), this solution does not reduce the per-unit cost of components. AJM continues purchasing at market rates, representing a significant opportunity cost compared to in-house 3D printing.

C1c, How Qualitative and Quantitative Data Informed the Solutions

This is a required sub-item many students forget to write a dedicated slide or paragraph for. Cover it explicitly.

Quantitative Data, 3D Printing Viability: The Excel file confirms weekly demand of 20,300 units (annual: 1,055,600), current unit cost of $14.50, and transportation costs of $91,000/year. The 28% cost reduction from 3D printing = $4,285,736 in annual savings. Combined with freight savings, total annual savings = $4,376,736. Investment of $18,730,000 divided by $4,376,736 = 4.3-year payback. These numbers directly validate the feasibility of Solution 2.

Quantitative Data, Inventory Risk: The finished goods data shows Elecktore min-max at 7,500 to 13,500 units; Lexiplus at 5,000 to 9,000; Cadallia at 3,000 to 5,400. During the disruption, all lines dropped well below minimums. This quantifies the risk of single-sourcing and supports the urgency of Solutions 1 and 3.

Qualitative Data, Leadership and Governance: The 2-day team assembly delay and absence of a crisis leader indicate a structural problem, not just a sourcing problem. This supports Solution 3’s ability to build agility through a specialized partner who can respond faster than an internally assembled team.

Qualitative Data, Technology: The existing ERP barcode and EDI system provided real-time visibility that made the recovery faster. Leadership interest in RFID and big data forecasting aligns with Solution 2’s long-term technology trajectory.

C2: Recommendation and Justification

Recommend ONE solution. Do not recommend a combination. Assessors want a clear, defensible choice tied to the data.

Both Solution 1 and Solution 2 can be successfully recommended, the key is justification with specific data.

If You Recommend Solution 2 (3D Printing):

• The only solution that eliminates external supplier dependency entirely, the root cause of the disruption
• The 4.3-year payback period is finite and supported by quantitative data: $4,376,736 in annual savings against $18,730,000 investment
• Addresses leadership’s concern about min-max inventory levels by reducing the need to carry large buffer stock of purchased components
• Produces stronger parts than molded items (per case study), improving product quality
• Expansion capacity (12 machines, 6 installed) creates a strategic growth platform not included in the payback calculation
• Caveat: Recommend a bridge strategy (interim multisourcing or 3PL) during the 9-month construction period to address near-term vulnerability

If You Recommend Solution 1 (Multisource Supply Chain):

• Lowest risk implementation, no capital expenditure, no construction delay, fastest to deploy
• Directly addresses the single-source vulnerability identified as the primary internal risk
• Supports flexibility across different market segments and customer needs
• Best suited if AJM has capital constraints or if leadership is risk-averse about large investment
• Caveat: Note this does not address the min-max capital concern or unit cost reduction

D472 Task 1 Presenter Notes: How to Write Them

Presenter notes are where assessors look for analytical depth. The WGU rubric states notes must “fully cover the level of explanation, analysis, and discussion necessary.”

Rules for passing presenter notes:

• Target 150 to 250 words per analytical slide (Slides 2 to 13)
• Expand on slide content, do not repeat slide bullets verbatim
• Include in-text citations where applicable: for example, (Katsaliaki et al., 2022)
• For data slides, interpret the data, explain what it means for AJM’s risk exposure, not just the number
• Use transition phrases: “This indicates…”, “The implication is…”, “This data suggests AJM should…”
• Close each note with a transition sentence connecting to the next slide

Weak presenter note: “AJM’s production dropped during the disruption. This affected several product lines.”

Strong presenter note: “AJM’s production declined 100% within three weeks of the March 2023 fire. Elecktore finished goods fell from approximately 12,000 units to 2,000 by mid-April, while LC879 component stock was completely depleted by March 6, as evidenced by the yellow line disappearing from the components graph. Only Cadallia experienced a product disruption because it was the only line where inventory dropped below the min-max floor of 3,000 units. This quantifies both the speed and the severity of single-source dependency risk in real operational terms (Katsaliaki et al., 2022).”

Key Data Points Reference Table

These are the numbers you need across the D472 WGU Task 1 rubric. Flag your case study and Excel file at these points before writing.

Pre-Submission Checklist

Before submitting your D472 Task 1 PowerPoint, verify every item:

• Slide 1 has the presentation title and your student name
• Every rubric item from B1 through B6 is explicitly addressed on a slide or in presenter notes
• Both external risks are named: fire at Houston supplier AND media misinformation
• Both internal risks are named: single-source dependency AND no designated crisis leader with 2-day delay
• At least 3 to 4 specific data points cited in the operational impact section (B4)
• Each solution has exactly 3 strengths and 2 weaknesses, clearly labeled
• C1c explicitly explains how both qualitative AND quantitative data informed the solutions
• A single solution is recommended in C2, no hedging or hybrid recommendation
• C2a provides a data-backed justification with specific numbers from the Excel file
• Every content slide has substantive presenter notes (150+ words for analytical slides)
• In-text citations in presenter notes wherever source material is paraphrased
• Reference slide with APA 7-formatted references is the final slide
• Presentation is 10 to 15 slides including title and reference slides

APA 7 References for D472 Task 1

Use these sources to meet the in-text citation and reference list requirements (Part D). Each entry is formatted in APA 7.

Frequently Asked Questions About WGU D472 Task 1

What is D472 Task 1 WGU?

WGU D472 Task 1 is the first performance assessment in the 21st Century Operations and Supply Chain D472 course. You analyze a pre-written case study about Autojor Manufacturing (AJM), which experienced a supply chain disruption when its sole-source supplier’s facility caught fire. You illustrate the disruption, evaluate three proposed solutions using the case study and Excel data, and recommend one solution in a 10 to 15-slide PowerPoint presentation with presenter notes.

What is the D472 Task 1 PowerPoint format?

The D472 Task 1 PowerPoint must include a title slide, content slides covering Parts B and C, presenter notes on every content slide, a conclusion slide with your recommendation, and a reference slide. The slide count is 10 to 15 including title and reference slides. Presenter notes must be substantive, 150 to 250 words per analytical slide, expanding on the slide content rather than repeating it.

Can I find a D472 Task 1 example to study?

Yes, the guide above is structured as a complete D472 Task 1 example covering every rubric item. Because the case study is fixed (all D472 WGU students analyze the same Autojor scenario), the analytical framework, data points, strengths, and weaknesses above are directly applicable to your submission. Your presentation must contain your own analysis and writing, do not adapt or copy the content above as your own submission.

Which solution should I recommend for D472 Task 1?

Both Solution 1 (Multisource Supply Chain) and Solution 2 (3D Printing) have been successfully recommended by students. Solution 2 is supported by the strongest quantitative case, the 4.3-year payback period and $4,376,736 in annual savings. Solution 1 is the strongest choice if leadership is risk-averse about capital commitment. Pick one, justify it with specific numbers from the Excel file, and do not recommend a hybrid or combination.

What does “21st Century Operations and Supply Chain D472” cover?

21st Century Operations and Supply Chain D472 is a WGU MBA course covering supply chain risk management, disruption response, operational resilience, and solution evaluation in a modern global business context. Task 1 tests your ability to apply these concepts to a real disruption scenario using both qualitative case study analysis and quantitative data modeling.

Related WGU MBA Guides

• WGU C216 Task 1: Investor Presentation Guide, MBA Capstone Task 1
• WGU C216 Task 2: Stockholder Report Guide, MBA Capstone Task 2
• WGU C216 MBA Capstone Complete Guide, full capstone overview
• WGU EHM2 Task 1: Ethical Theories and Leadership, business ethics course