SCOR DS · Order · caselet
Who ships, who waits: an ATP short-ship under a port strike
A port strike leaves committed orders 3,800 units above available-to-promise. Four allocation strategies ship the same units — with a 5× spread in penalty exposure.
The situation. A components manufacturer has six open orders for its DR-7 drive-module family — two of them Tier-1 contracts with on-time-in-full penalty clauses. A U.S. port strike halts inbound container flow: three vessels carrying 5,200 units sit at anchor, ETAs slipped 9–16 days.
The signal. The Order Planning agent detects that committed orders (12,400 units) now exceed on-hand plus firm receipts (8,600 units) — a 3,800-unit shortfall. Systems consulted: ERP (open orders, ATP, on-hand), TMS (vessel ETAs, port status), customer master (tier, OTIF SLA, penalties), and the risk feed carrying the strike event.
The decision. Fill rate is fixed at ~69% whatever happens; the decision is who ships. The agent recommends protecting both Tier-1 OTIF contracts in full, filling Tier-2 as far as supply allows, and re-promising the spot orders against confirmed inbound recovery dates. The alternatives it prices: pro-rata (feels fair, breaches both Tier-1 SLAs), FIFO (ships a spot customer ahead of penalty-bearing contracts), and protect-margin (maximizes the week’s margin, shorts a Tier-1).
The write-back. Allocation quantities and new promise dates written to the ERP; each backorder promised against the first date delayed supply actually lands, read from the TMS.
The outcome.
| Metric | Recommended | Pro-rata (the “fair” default) |
|---|---|---|
| Tier-1 OTIF SLA | Held | Breached |
| Penalty exposure | $11,000 | $56,667 |
| Units shipped | 8,600 | 8,600 |
The takeaway. Same fill rate, 5× spread in exposure — the allocation, not the shortage, decides what a disruption costs.
Representative scenario; customers, SKUs, and figures are synthetic. SCOR is ASCM’s framework. Explore it interactively in the worked decision example.