Journal of Systems Science and Complexity

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 1273–1301 | Cite as

Retailers’ Order Strategies in Transshipments in Disruption Risks of Supply Chains

  • Tong ShuEmail author
  • Xirui Yang
  • Shou Chen
  • Shouyang Wang
  • Kin Keung Lai
  • Honglin Yang


This article investigates the order problem in a two-stage supply chain consisting of retailers, primary suppliers and backup suppliers. From retailers’ perspectives, the optimal offering strategies in unidirectional transshipments are analyzed on the basis of disruption risks in supply chains. With a focus on retailers’ profits, it develops the decision model of retailers’ orders in the dual sourcing mode and in the mode of capacity options, to maximize the retailers’ expected profits. The simulation shows that retailers’ optimal order decisions are not correlated with the joint disruption probability in the two order modes without service constraints; retailers’ optimal decisions are influenced by the joint disruption probability in the two order modes with service constraints, and the impact of the joint disruption probability of the primary suppliers’ optimal order from retailers differs in the two modes. Retailers’ order decisions in respect of backup suppliers are more sensitive to the changing volumes of transshipments. The contribution of this article is the impact of main parameters on retailers’ decisions, providing some guidance for enterprises to make order decisions.


Capacity options disruption risks in supply chains dual sourcing purchase order strategies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Biais B, Hillion P, and Spatt C, An empirical analysis of the limit order book and the order flow in the Paris Bourse, Journal of Finance, 1995, 50(5): 1655–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Tomlin B, On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks, Management Science, 2006, 52(5): 639–657.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Berger P D and Zeng A Z, Single versus multiple sourcing in the presence of risks, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2006, 57(3): 250–261.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Chopra S, Reinhardt G, and Mohan U, The importance of decoupling recurrent and disruption risks in a supply chain, Naval Research Logistics, 2007, 57(5): 544–555.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Giri B C, Managementinventory with two suppliers under yield uncertainty and risk aversion, International Journal of Production Economics, 2010, 15(9): 214–219.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chen J L, Zhao X B, and Zhou Y, A periodic-review inventory system with a capacitated backup supplier for mitigating supply disruptions, European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 219(2): 312–323.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Schmitt A J and Snyder L V, Infinite-horizon models for inventory control under yield uncertainty and disruptions, Computers and Operations Research, 2012, 39(4): 850–852.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Xanthopoulos A, Vlachos D, and Iakovou E, Optimal newsvendor policies for dual-sourcing supply chains: A disruption risk management framework, Computers and Operations Research, 2012, 39(2): 350–357.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Zhu J J and Fu S C, Ordering policies for a dual sourcing supply chain with disruption risks, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2013, 6(1): 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Li S S, He Y, and Chen L J, Dynamic strategies for supply disruptions in production-inventory systems, International Journal of Production Economics,
  11. [11]
    Firouz M, Keskin B B, and Melouk S H, An integrated supplier selection and inventory problem with multi-sourcing and lateral transshipments, Omega, 2017, 70(6): 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Sophie P, Managing risks of supply-chain disruptions: Dual sourcing as a real option, Master’s degree thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Massachusetts, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    He Y and Zhao X, Contracts and coordination: Supply chains with uncertain demand and supply, Naval Research Logistics, 2016, 63(4): 305–319.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Evers P, Hidden benefits of emergency transshipments, Journal of Business Logistics, 1997, 18(2): 55–76.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Herer Y and Michal T, The dynamic transshipment problem, Naval Research Logistics, 2001, 48(5): 386–408.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Evers P, Heuristics for assessing emergency transshipments, European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 129(2): 311–316.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Minner S, Silver E A, and Robb D J, An improved heuristic for deciding on emergency transshipments, European Journal of Operational Research, 2003, 148(2): 384–400.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Cheung K L and Lee H L, The inventory benefit of shipment coordination and stock rebalancing in a supply chain, Management Science, 2002, 48(2): 300–306.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Wee K E and Dada M, Optimal policies for transshipping inventory in a retail network, Management Science, 2005, 51(10): 1519–1533.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Özdemir D, Yücesan E, and Herer Y T, Multi-location transshipment problem with capacitated production, European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 226(3): 425–435.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Zou L, Dresner M, and Windle R, A two-location inventory model with transshipments in a competitive environment, International Journal of Production Economics, 2010, 125(2): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Liao Y, Shen W J, Hu X X, et al., Optimal responses to stockouts: Lateral transshipment versus emergency order policies, Omega, 2014, 49(2): 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    He Y, Zhang P, and Yao Y L, Unidirectional transshipment policies in a dual-channel supply chain, Economic Modelling, 2014, 40(6): 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Feng P P, Fung R Y K, and Wu F, Preventive transshipment decisions in a multi-location inventory system with dynamic approach, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2017, 104(2): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Amrani H and Khmelnitsky E, Optimal division of inventory between depot and bases, Naval Research Logistics, 2017, 64(3): 3–18.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Meena P L, Sarmah S P, and Sarkar A, Sourcing decisions under risks of catastrophic event disruptions, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2011, 47(6): 1058–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Sting F J and Huchzermeier A, Ensuring responsive capacity: How to contract with backup suppliers, European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 207(2): 725–735.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Systems Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tong Shu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xirui Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shou Chen
    • 1
  • Shouyang Wang
    • 3
  • Kin Keung Lai
    • 4
  • Honglin Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.Business SchoolHunan UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.Logistics Department of HuangpiWuhanChina
  3. 3.Academy of Mathematics and System ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.International Business SchoolShaanxi Normal UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations