4.6 Article

Dynamic Supply Risk Management with Signal-Based Forecast, Multi-Sourcing, and Discretionary Selling

期刊

PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1399-1415

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/poms.12695

关键词

supply risk management; signal-based supply forecast; multi-sourcing; discretionary selling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the critical role of advance supply signalssuch as suppliers' financial health and production viabilityin dynamic supply risk management. The firm operates an inventory system with multiple demand classes and multiple suppliers. The sales are discretionary and the suppliers are susceptible to both systematic and operational risks. We develop a hierarchical Markov model that captures the essential features of advance supply signals, and integrate it with procurement and selling decisions. We characterize the optimal procurement and selling policy, and the strategic relationship between signal-based forecast, multi-sourcing, and discretionary selling. We show that higher demand heterogeneity may reduce the value of discretionary selling, and that the mean value-based forecast may outperform the stationary distribution-based forecast. This work advances our understanding on when and how to use advance supply signals in dynamic risk management. Future supply risk erodes profitability but enhances the marginal value of current inventory. A signal of future supply shortage raises both base stock and demand rationing levels, thereby boosting the current production and tightening the current sales. Signal-based dynamic forecast effectively guides the firm's procurement and selling decisions. Its value critically depends on supply volatility and scarcity. Ignoring advance supply signals can result in misleading recommendations and severe losses. Signal-based dynamic supply forecast should be used when: (a) supply uncertainty is substantial, (b) supply-demand ratio is moderate, (c) forecast precision is high, and (d) supplier heterogeneity is high.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据