Global Dual Sourcing: Tailored Base-Surge Allocation to Near- and Offshore Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing a sourcing strategy in practice, a key task is to determine the average order rates placed to each source because that affects cost and supplier management. We consider a firm that has access to a responsive nearshore source (e.g., Mexico) and a low-cost offshore source (e.g., China). The firm must determine an inventory sourcing policy to satisfy random demand over time. Unfortunately, the optimal policy is too complex to allow a direct answer to our key question. Therefore, we analyze a tailored base-surge (TBS) sourcing policy that is simple, used in practice, and captures the classic trade-off between cost and responsiveness. The TBS policy combines push and pull controls by replenishing at a constant rate from the offshore source and producing at the nearshore plant only when inventory is below a target. The constant base allocation allows the offshore facility to focus on cost efficiency, whereas the nearshore facility's quick response capability is utilized only dynamically to guarantee high service. The research goals are to (i) determine the allocation of random demand into base and surge capacity, (ii) estimate corresponding working capital requirements, and (iii) identify and value the key drivers of dual sourcing. We present performance bounds on the optimal cost and prove that economic optimization brings the system into heavy traffic. We analyze the sourcing policy that is asymptotically optimal for high-volume systems and present a simple “square-root” formula that is insightful to answer our questions and sufficiently accurate for practice, as is demonstrated with a validation study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".