This paper examines two key inventory distribution strategies: inventory pooling (lateral transshipment) and transshipment. Inventory pooling consolidates stock at a central distribution point for shipment to multiple retailers across different markets, while transshipment occurs at the retail level when inventory is transferred between facilities to address stockouts. The paper identifies shared characteristics between these strategies, including reasonable shipping costs and vulnerability to demand and lead time uncertainties. Through analysis of companies like Caterpillar and John Deere, the paper demonstrates that transshipment functions most effectively in oligopolistic markets with high product differentiation, whereas inventory pooling may be unsuitable for bulky, high-cost inventory items with low consumer demand.
Transshipment and inventory pooling are among the most commonly-used inventory distribution strategies. Simply stated, inventory pooling (also referred to as lateral transshipment) is the storage of a single stock of inventory at a common point, with the aim of shipping the same to different retailers in multiple markets, each with its own demand patterns (Swinney, 2011). In other words, it is the pooling together of demands from multiple geographic markets (Swinney, 2011).
A perfect example of an inventory pooling arrangement is illustrated when 5,000 Cadillacs are parked at the General Motors regional distribution office in Ohio, awaiting shipment to different parts of the state. This centralized approach allows manufacturers to balance demand across geographically dispersed retailers while maintaining reasonable inventory levels.
Transshipment, unlike inventory pooling, takes place at the retail level. It can be defined as the "shipment of items between different facilities at the same level in the supply chain to meet some immediate need" (Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky & Simchi-Levi, 2008, p. 18). In the GM example above, once the Cadillacs have reached different retailers within the state, they can be transferred between two or more related retailers to address stockouts.
Since demand is uncertain, the Cadillac inventory at one retail facility may run out before that of another. If a customer places an order for a specific model, the two facilities could make arrangements to have the same transshipped from the other facility to the one experiencing a deficit. This flexibility at the retail level distinguishes transshipment from the centralized pooling strategy that occurs upstream in the distribution network.
From these explanations, two important similarities between the two distribution systems can be deduced.
The shipping costs in both cases must be reasonable. If the shipping costs from the central point of distribution to the respective retail facilities were significant, retail prices would increase, and the more established retailers, who enjoy scale economies, would have a competitive advantage over their less-established counterparts. In such a scenario, the market would trend toward monopoly conditions, which do not favor inventory pooling.
In the case of transshipment, shipping costs must also be reasonable; otherwise, the final price will be higher than it otherwise would have been, and consumers may opt for cheaper substitutes from competitors. This cost constraint applies regardless of whether inventory is consolidated at a central warehouse or transferred between retail locations.
Both strategies are significantly affected by demand and lead time uncertainties. Retail facilities base their purchase decisions on demand predictions for a particular period. The lower the demand predictions, the less inventory units demanded by retail firms and the lower the levels of inventory pooled by the manufacturer.
For instance, if car dealers in Ohio predict that demand for Cadillacs in a particular purchase cycle will be low, they are likely to purchase fewer units from the manufacturer. Consequently, General Motors is likely to pool lower quantities of inventory at its regional distribution point. Similarly, transshipments are affected by demand patterns—a retailer is forced to transship inventory from another retailer because actual patterns of demand were not as predicted (Swinney, 2011). Both systems rely on accurate forecasting and must adapt when reality diverges from expectations.
"Real-world implementation in equipment manufacturing"
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.