We determine the optimal ordering policy for a retailer who has two instants to order a seasonal product from a manufacturer prior to a single selling season. While the demand is uncertain, the retailer can improve the forecast by utilizing the market signals observed between the first and second instants. However, because of the nature of the manufacturing environment, the unit cost at the second instant is uncertain and could be higher (or lower) than the unit cost at the first instant. To determine the profit-maximizing ordering strategies at both instants, the retailer has to evaluate the trade-off between a more accurate forecast and a potentially higher unit cost at the second instant. We present a nested newsvendor model for determining the optimal order quantity at each instant and characterize the conditions under which it is optimal for the retailer to delay its order until the second instant.inventory, uncertain cost, demand forecast updating

S upply disruptions are all too common in supply chains. To mitigate delivery risk, buyers may either source from multiple suppliers or offer incentives to their preferred supplier to improve its process reliability. These incentives can be either direct (investment subsidy) or indirect (inflated order quantity). In this study, we present a series of models to highlight buyers' and suppliers' optimal parameter choices. Our base-case model has deterministic buyer demand and two possibilities for the supplier yield outcomes: all-or-nothing supply or partial disruption. For the all-or-nothing model, we show that the buyer prefers to only use the subsidy option, which obviates the need to inflate order quantity. However, in the partial disruption model, both incentives-subsidy and order inflation-may be used at the same time.Although single sourcing provides greater indirect incentive to the selected supplier because that avoids order splitting, we show that the buyer may prefer the diversification strategy under certain circumstances. We also quantify the amount by which the wholesale price needs to be discounted (if at all) to ensure that dual sourcing strategy dominates sole sourcing. Finally, we extend the model to the case of stochastic demand. Structural properties of ordering/subsidy decisions are derived for the all-or-nothing model, and in contrast to the deterministic demand case, we establish that the buyer may increase use of subsidy and order quantity at the same time.

A supplier facing the prospect of disruption has to decide whether or not to invest in restoration capability. With restoration capability, if disruption occurs, additional costly effort can be exerted to rebuild capacity, although its outcome is uncertain. We study how a firm (buyer) can use incentive mechanisms to motivate a supplier's investment in capacity restoration, and compare this approach with the traditional approach of diversifying part of the order to an expensive but reliable supplier. Under a Restoration Enhancement (RE) strategy, the buyer uses price and/or order quantity incentives to encourage the supplier's restoration investment decision. Two different cases are considered-when the incentive is committed to ex ante (prior to disruption) and when it is committed to ex post (after disruption). In contrast, under a Supplier Diversification (SD) strategy, the buyer splits orders between a reliable supplier and an unreliable supplier to hedge against the disruption risk. Here, the buyer does not provide any separate incentive to the unreliable supplier. Our analysis indicates that under the RE strategy, where the buyer offers incentives, both the buyer and the supplier (weakly) prefer the ex ante commitment over the ex post one. Furthermore, the RE strategy is preferred over the SD strategy when the unreliable supplier's restoration outcome is more predictable or when a high restoration outcome is more likely. However, the buyer's preference for the SD strategy increases as market demand increases.

No abstract