Allocate scarce stock and publish a revised dispatch plan Skill Workbench · 2026-10-21 · Original fictional teaching material Learn a repeatable allocation method in three units: order the queue, reconcile a short dispatch, then version a changed plan. Save the calculations and a customer-support handoff. For someone who can subtract whole quantities and read a small order table. A spreadsheet is optional; no logistics software or account is needed. - Order requests using explicit priority and tie-breaking rules. - Allocate within each SKU without negative balances and reconcile every requested unit. - Handle a revised input and distinguish a new draft from instructions already sent. CASE CONTRACT 1. Work within each SKU. Process lower priority numbers first; ties use the earlier promised time, then the alphabetically earlier order ID. All times are on the same fictional working day. 2. Allocate as much as possible to the next order, including a partial quantity. Deduct it before moving to the next order. 3. Available stock is the entire usable balance; there are no pending receipts, reservations or substitute items in this exercise. 4. The exception list contains every order receiving less than requested, including an order receiving zero. Shortage units equal requested minus allocated units. 1. Establish the queue and the stock boundary Make the ordering rule and available quantity explicit before allocating units. An allocation plan answers which requests can be served from a stated stock balance at a stated cutoff. Start with the boundary: the SKU, usable quantity and orders included in the run. Stock for another SKU is not automatically a substitute. A receipt after the cutoff cannot silently be treated as stock that was available before it. Ordering is a policy decision that this exercise supplies. A lower priority number comes first. Within a priority, the earlier promised time comes first. An exact tie is broken by the alphabetically earlier order ID. Apply the whole rule rather than sorting only by time or selecting the largest order. A clear tie-breaker makes the same inputs produce the same allocation. For each request, allocate the smaller of its requested units and the remaining stock. Subtract that allocation immediately, then move to the next request. This permits a partial fill when the next request exceeds the balance. Keep requested, allocated and short quantities separate: they answer demand, dispatch and follow-up questions respectively. A balance check catches mistakes that a plausible-looking table can hide. Allocations plus unused stock must equal the starting balance. Allocations plus shortages must equal total requests. A zero allocation is still a decision that must appear in the plan. Leaving a field blank makes it unclear whether the line was reviewed at all. Worked example: consume stock in queue order Starting stock X=5. Request W1 asks for 3 at priority 1; W2 asks for 4 at priority 2. W1 receives min(3,5)=3, leaving 2. W2 receives min(4,2)=2, leaving 0 and a shortage of 2. Check: 3+2+0=5 stock units; 3+4=5 allocated+2 short. There are 9 usable X units. Apply priority, then promised time, then order ID. These requests are deliberately shown out of queue order. One-SKU warm-up order_id | sku | requested_units | priority | promised_time Q3 | X | 4 | 2 | 09:00 Q2 | X | 5 | 1 | 10:00 Q1 | X | 3 | 1 | 10:00 YOUR EXERCISE Which order is allocated first?: __________________ Q1 allocation (units): __________________ Q2 allocation (units): __________________ Q3 allocation (units): __________________ Total shortage (units): __________________ Your explanation: Explain why Q3 did not go first despite its earlier promised time, and show one reconciliation equation. FEEDBACK AND WORKED SOLUTION Queue order is Q1, Q2, Q3. Allocations are 3, 5 and 1, with a three-unit Q3 shortage and no remaining stock. The result follows the supplied priority policy; it is not a universal rule for every warehouse. Which order is allocated first? → Q1. Q1 and Q2 share priority and time, so Q1 wins the ID tie-break. Q3’s earlier time does not override its lower priority. Q1 allocation (units) → 3. Q1 receives 3 from the starting 9; six remain. Q2 allocation (units) → 5. Q2 receives 5 from the remaining 6; one remains. Q3 allocation (units) → 1. Q3 receives the final unit and is short 3. Total shortage (units) → 3. The requests total 12 and usable stock is 9; the shortage is 3. TRANSFER QUESTION If a colleague wants promised time to override priority, identify the policy change they are requesting rather than quietly changing the sort order. 2. Reconcile the dispatch and the exception list Keep separate SKU balances and account for every unallocated unit. The full case uses two SKUs. You can process their queues separately or process the whole ordered table while maintaining one balance per SKU. What matters is that an allocation from A never reduces B and that no balance becomes negative. Write down the opening balance before filling the first row. Once the allocation is complete, create an exception list for every line receiving less than requested. Include partial fills and zero fills. A list containing only orders with zero allocation misses customers who will receive something but not everything. The quantity short is requested minus allocated, not the remaining stock balance. Reconcile by SKU before combining totals. The A lines should use exactly the available A stock in this fixture; the B lines should do the same. Then reconcile total requests against total allocations and total shortage. This second calculation gives you an independent check on the line-level work rather than merely reading the same answers again. The dispatch table and customer-support note have different audiences. The warehouse needs explicit quantities by order and SKU. Customer support needs the exception IDs, shortage quantities and the information still required before promising recovery. The fixture provides no receipt date, so do not make one up. Save the table and the explanatory note together to keep the decision traceable. Worked example: partial still means exception If an order requests 6 A units and receives 2, its shortage is 4. It belongs on the exception list even though it will receive a shipment. Writing only “2 allocated” is insufficient for a support colleague who needs to explain what is missing. Work through the published six-order case. Preserve explicit zeros and use the supplied balances and priority rule. Available stock sku | available_units A | 17 B | 13 Dispatch requests order_id | sku | requested_units | priority | promised_time L1 | A | 8 | 1 | 09:00 L2 | B | 9 | 1 | 09:30 L3 | A | 7 | 2 | 10:00 L4 | A | 6 | 2 | 11:00 L5 | B | 8 | 2 | 10:30 L6 | B | 3 | 3 | 12:00 YOUR EXERCISE Units allocated to L1: __________________ Units allocated to L2: __________________ Units allocated to L3: __________________ Units allocated to L4: __________________ Units allocated to L5: __________________ Units allocated to L6: __________________ Order IDs needing a shortage notice: __________________ Total unallocated units: __________________ Your explanation: Write a warehouse/customer-support handoff naming each short order and quantity, plus the next information needed before promising a recovery date. This note is not automatically graded. FEEDBACK AND WORKED SOLUTION The allocation is L1=8, L2=9, L3=7, L4=2, L5=4 and L6=0. SKU A allocations total 17 and SKU B allocations total 13, so neither balance goes negative. The three shortage lines total 11 units. The fixture provides no receipt date; a handoff should request it rather than invent a delivery promise. Units allocated to L1 → 8. SKU A starts at 17; L1 receives all 8, leaving 9. Units allocated to L2 → 9. SKU B starts at 13; its priority-1 request receives 9, leaving 4. Units allocated to L3 → 7. L3 precedes L4 within SKU A, so it receives 7 from the remaining 9. Units allocated to L4 → 2. Only 2 units of A remain after L1 and L3. Record a partial allocation, not zero or six. Units allocated to L5 → 4. L5 receives the four remaining units of B before priority-3 L6. Units allocated to L6 → 0. All B stock is allocated before L6. Enter an explicit 0; a blank is not a zero allocation. Order IDs needing a shortage notice → L4, L5, L6. L4 is short 4, L5 is short 4 and L6 is short 3. Partially filled orders still need an exception notice. Total unallocated units → 11. Requests total 41 units and stock totals 30. The shortages 4 + 4 + 3 also total 11. TRANSFER QUESTION Compare the sum of the three shortage lines with total requests minus total stock. If they differ, locate the omitted or overstated line before sending the plan. 3. Revise a draft without hiding its changed assumptions Re-run a changed queue and label the resulting version before anyone acts on it. A correct allocation is tied to its inputs and cutoff. When the input changes, first ask whether the plan is still a draft or has already been released to the warehouse. A new calculation cannot automatically revoke instructions that people may have acted on. The scenario below explicitly says the plan has not been released, so it permits a fresh allocation. For this revision, only SKU B changes. A receipt of three usable B units is confirmed before the cutoff, raising its balance from 13 to 16. A new priority-1 request L7 for four B units, promised at 09:00, is also confirmed before the cutoff. The previous B requests remain. Re-sort the entire B queue; do not simply give the new stock to the last order from the old plan. The priority and time rules put L7 ahead of L2, then L5 and L6. Recompute allocations from the new opening balance. The extra receipt does not guarantee that every old order receives more: the added higher-priority demand also consumes stock. A comparison should explain which allocation changed and why, rather than celebrating the receipt alone. Version the result as a revised draft, state which inputs changed and reconcile its new totals. If the old version had already been sent, the next action would be to confirm execution status and coordinate a revision, not silently overwrite it. Your final portfolio saves both the baseline exercise and this independent revision so the difference remains inspectable. Worked example: compare supply and demand changes The baseline B requests total 20 units against 13 available, leaving 7 short. The revision adds 3 stock units and 4 requested units, so total B demand becomes 24 and available stock 16. The revised total shortage is therefore 8 before you work out which orders receive it. This total check does not replace the row allocation. The baseline plan is still an unreleased draft. Re-run SKU B with 16 units and the four rows below. SKU A is unchanged and is outside this revision. Revised B queue inputs order_id | sku | requested_units | priority | promised_time L2 | B | 9 | 1 | 09:30 L5 | B | 8 | 2 | 10:30 L6 | B | 3 | 3 | 12:00 L7 | B | 4 | 1 | 09:00 YOUR EXERCISE Revised L7 allocation (units): __________________ Revised L2 allocation (units): __________________ Revised L5 allocation (units): __________________ Revised L6 allocation (units): __________________ Revised total B shortage (units): __________________ How should this result be handed off?: __________________ Your explanation: Write the revision note: identify the stock/request changes, the allocation that decreased, the new shortage and the version’s unreleased status. FEEDBACK AND WORKED SOLUTION B queue: L7, L2, L5, L6. Allocations: 4, 9, 3, 0. Shortages: L5=5 and L6=3. Total allocated is 16; total shortage is 8. L5 decreases from 4 to 3 because four units of higher-priority demand were added while supply rose by only three. Revised L7 allocation (units) → 4. L7 is priority 1 at 09:00, so it receives 4 first, leaving 12. Revised L2 allocation (units) → 9. L2 receives 9 next, leaving 3. Revised L5 allocation (units) → 3. L5 receives the remaining 3, not its previous allocation of 4. Revised L6 allocation (units) → 0. No B stock remains for L6. Record an explicit zero. Revised total B shortage (units) → 8. Demand 24 minus stock 16 equals 8; L5 is short 5 and L6 is short 3. How should this result be handed off? → revised-draft. This scenario authorizes recalculating an unreleased draft. It gives no recovery date and no authority to silently revoke an executed plan. TRANSFER QUESTION If you learn that baseline picking has started, name the operational confirmation needed before treating this recalculated draft as the warehouse instruction. PORTFOLIO REVIEW Keep all three exercise records and explanations. Fixed checks can be scored; explanations are ungraded. Do not infer occupational certification. SOURCE O*NET 13-1081.00 task 8934 · 07/2016 · Direct availability and allocation of materials, supplies, and finished products. O*NET 13-1081.00 task 8935 · 07/2016 · Collaborate with other departments as necessary to meet customer requirements, to take advantage of sales opportunities or, in the case of shortages, to minimize negative impacts on a business. https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1081.00 O*NET 31.0, USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0. Skill Workbench authored the teaching and fictional practice; no endorsement.