WGU D472 Task 1: Step-by-Step Guide to Writing Perfect-Score

D472 Task 1 – Operations and Supply Chain Disruption at Autojor Manufacturing

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.

PART 1: Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Perfect-Score D472 Task 1

Step 1 — Slide Structure (Do This Before Writing Anything)

Build your slide deck with exactly this structure before adding any content. WGU evaluators expect a logical flow from context → analysis → recommendation.

Step 2 — Part B: Illustrating the Disruption

B1: Describe the Disruption + Risk Classification

Write this in your presenter notes and summarize on the slide:

• Event: 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.
• Risk Classification: 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. Academically, this aligns with what Katsaliaki et al. (2022) classify as a ‘high-impact, low-probability’ disruption resulting from supplier concentration risk.
• Production impact: 100% reduction in production levels three weeks post-disruption.

B2 + B2a: Two External Risks

External risks originate OUTSIDE the organization’s control. Use these two:

• External Risk 1 — Facility Fire at the Houston Supplier: This is an environmental/natural-accidental catastrophic event. It was entirely outside AJM’s control. It caused an immediate shutdown of the only source for small metal gears, triggering a complete component shortage.
• External Risk 1 Impact (for B2a): 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 lines (Elecktore, Lexiplus, Cadallia, OEM) declining sharply beginning in early March 2023. OEM production stopped immediately. AJM incurred expedited freight costs and risked customer contract penalties with Cadallia.
• External Risk 2 — Media and Social Media Misinformation: As stated in the case study, ‘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/informational risk that impacted employee morale and created internal uncertainty about the long-term viability of the company.

B3 + B3a: Two Internal Risks

Internal risks originate INSIDE the organization. These are explicitly named in the case study:

• Internal Risk 1 — Single-Source Supplier Dependency: AJM relied on ONE supplier in Houston for 100% of a key component. This procurement decision is an internal process risk. It eliminated any supply redundancy, making a single supplier event catastrophic.
• Internal Risk 2 — Absence of a Designated Crisis Leader / 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/operational risk. The 2-day delay cost critical response time when inventory was already declining.
• Internal Risk 2 Impact (for B3a): 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 approached. 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 submissions lose points. You MUST cite specific data. Include all of the following in your presenter notes:

• Production volumes dropped 100% within three weeks of the disruption.
• OEM production was stopped IMMEDIATELY and subassembly materials were reassigned to protect named customer accounts.
• Finished goods inventory for Elecktore began at ~12,000 units and dropped to approximately 2,000 by mid-April 2023.
• Lexiplus inventory declined from ~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, which impacted profitability during the recovery window.
• Only Cadallia experienced an actual product disruption; Elecktore and Lexiplus were protected by existing min-max levels.

B5: Resilience Demonstrated

• 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 and formulate response plans.
• Increased proactive communication with Cadallia, Lexiplus, and Elecktore to manage expectations and explore all available options.

B6: Recovery from Disruption

• The 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.
• The 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, with the team assessing risk factors for each.
• Min-max inventory levels were restored progressively as production resumed.

Step 3 — Part C: Evaluating All Three Solutions

Solution 1: Multisource Supply Chain

3 Strengths:

• 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 like Solution 2.

2 Weaknesses:

• Weakness 1 — Increased Supplier Management Complexity: Managing three suppliers instead of one 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 the leadership concern that existing min-max levels tie up capital. Even with multiple suppliers, AJM would still need to carry significant buffer inventory because it remains dependent on external sourcing.

Solution 2: 3D Printing

3 Strengths:

• Strength 1 — Significant Cost Reduction with Clear Payback: The quantitative data shows a 28% unit cost reduction ($14.50 → 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 and Control: 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 to respond to demand fluctuations.
• 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 — potentially generating revenue well beyond the current customer base.

2 Weaknesses:

• 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 could strain AJM’s balance sheet and requires confident demand projections over a multi-year horizon.
• Weakness 2 — 9-Month Construction Lead Time Leaves Near-Term Vulnerability: The construction period alone is 9 months. During this window, AJM remains fully dependent on its existing supplier and is just as vulnerable to another disruption as it was before the fire. The solution does not address the immediate or near-term risk.

Solution 3: Third-Party Inventory Warehouse Integration

3 Strengths:

• Strength 1 — Lowest Implementation Cost and Fastest Deployment: Unlike Solution 2, this option requires no capital construction or major asset investment. 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 AJM 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. This effectively combines elements of Solution 1’s risk reduction with lower administrative complexity.

2 Weaknesses:

• Weakness 1 — Dependency on Third-Party Performance and Values Alignment: AJM’s supply chain resilience becomes partially dependent on the 3PL’s reliability, financial stability, and operational standards. If the 3PL partner experiences its own disruption (financial failure, labor strike, facility issues), 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. Over time, this represents 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 paragraph for. Cover it explicitly:

• Quantitative Data (3D Printing): The Excel sheet 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 savings. Combined with freight savings, annual savings = $4,376,736. Investment of $18,730,000 ÷ $4,376,736 = 4.3-year payback. These numbers directly validate the feasibility of Solution 2.
• Quantitative Data (Inventory): The finished goods data shows Elecktore’s min-max is 7,500–13,500 units; Lexiplus: 5,000–9,000; Cadallia: 3,000–5,400. 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 concerns about the 2-day team assembly delay and absence of a crisis leader informed the need for structural change, not just sourcing change. This supports Solution 3’s ability to build agility into the supply chain through a specialized partner who can respond faster than an internally assembled team.
• Qualitative Data (ERP): The existing ERP barcode and EDI system provided real-time visibility that made the recovery faster. All three solutions should leverage this existing infrastructure for monitoring. Leadership interest in RFID and big data forecasting aligns with Solution 2’s long-term technology trajectory.

Step 4 — Part C2: Recommendation and Justification

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

Recommended Solution: Solution 2 — 3D Printing (or Solution 1 as an alternative — see below)

Both Solution 1 and Solution 2 can be successfully recommended IF justified with data. Here is the case for each:

If You Recommend Solution 2 (3D Printing):

Justify with these specific points:

• 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 (case study), improving product quality and potential competitive differentiation.
• Expansion capacity (12 machines, 6 installed) creates a strategic growth platform — the payback calculation does not even include new revenue potential.
• 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 leadership is risk-averse about a large investment.
• Caveat: Note this does not address min-max capital concern or unit cost reduction.

Step 5 — Presenter Notes: How to Write Them

Presenter notes are where evaluators look for depth of analysis. Follow these rules:

• Each slide must have presenter notes — WGU rubric states notes must ‘fully cover the level of explanation, analysis, and discussion necessary.’
• Notes should be 150–250 words per slide for analytical slides (Slides 2–13).
• Notes should EXPAND on what’s on the slide — do not simply repeat slide text.
• Include in-text citations in notes where applicable: e.g., (Ambulkar et al., 2022).
• For data slides, interpret the data — don’t just state the number. Explain what it means for AJM’s risk exposure.
• Use transition phrases that show analytical reasoning: ‘This indicates…,’ ‘The implication is…,’ ‘This data suggests AJM should…’

STEP 6 — Citations: Part D Requirements

WGU requires in-text citations and a reference list for any content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. Use APA 7 format. Include a minimum of 4–6 peer-reviewed sources from 2021–2026. Below are verified sources with URLs:

Recommended References with URLs

Part 2: Key Data Points to Memorize for This Assignment

Part 3: Pre-Submission Final Checklist

Before submitting, verify every item below is present and complete:

1. Slide 1 has the presentation title AND your student name.
2. Every rubric item from B1–B6 is explicitly addressed (not implied) on a slide or in presenter notes.
3. Both external risks are NAMED (fire AND media misinformation).
4. Both internal risks are NAMED (single-source dependency AND no designated crisis leader/2-day delay).
5. At least 3–4 specific data points are cited in the operational impact section (B4).
6. Each solution has exactly 3 strengths and 2 weaknesses, clearly labeled.
7. C1c explicitly explains how both qualitative AND quantitative data informed the solutions.
8. A SINGLE solution is recommended in C2 — no hedging or hybrid.
9. C2a provides a data-backed justification (not just opinion).
10. Every content slide has substantive presenter notes (150+ words for analytical slides).
11. In-text citations are present in presenter notes wherever source material is paraphrased.
12. A reference slide with APA 7 formatted references is the final slide.
13. Presentation is 10–15 slides (including title and reference slides).

References

• Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2022). Firm’s resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations Management, 39(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.09.001
• DHL. (2024). Top 5 supply chain risks in 2024. Delivered. https://www.dhl.com/global-en/delivered/global-trade/top-5-supply-chain-risks-in-2024.html
• Ivanov, D. (2021). Supply chain viability and the COVID-19 pandemic: A conceptual and formal generalisation of four major adaptation strategies. International Journal of Production Research, 59(12), 3535–3552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1890852
• Katsaliaki, K., Galetsi, P., & Kumar, S. (2022). Supply chain disruptions and resilience: A major review and future research agenda. Annals of Operations Research, 319(1), 965–1002. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792559/
• Precoro. (2026). 7 basic types of supply chain risks. https://precoro.com/blog/7-basic-types-of-supply-chain-risks/
• World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. (2024). Supply chain risk management: Building resilience in uncertain times. WJARR, 21(1), 2968–2982. https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0356.pdf
• Z2Data. (2026). 22 critical supply chain risks to watch for in 2026. https://www.z2data.com/insights/22-critical-supply-chain-risks-to-watch-for-in-2026