V skratke

Material shortage allocation becomes a group decision the moment one supplier confirms less than several plants need. Until one available-supply position exists, each site plans against material the group can commit only once. The same units then reach two customer promises.

The sequence that holds is narrow. Group supply chain confirms the pool, and every site restates its need in one format. One named executive then weighs customer commitments against alternatives, takes the decision and sets the review date.

Material shortage allocation begins with one available-supply position

A supplier confirms that the next eight weeks cover part of what the group ordered. Four plants in Czechia, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary use the same component. Within a day, each planning run has netted local demand against what it believes is available. Each site now holds a different view of whose shortfall this is. Nothing has gone wrong at the plants. The arithmetic simply ran four times against one pool.

A multi-plant supply shortage is not four local problems that share a supplier. MRP netting, safety stock, consignment stock and intercompany transfer orders make the same units visible in several places. Material shortage allocation is the decision that follows. It is a group decision whether or not anyone takes it.

Group supply chain states the confirmed pool in writing: quantity, confirmation date and exclusions. Each site then restates its requirement against that single number. Safety stock sits on a separate line from net requirement. The next step is to name the decision-maker, usually the COO or the group supply-chain director. Fix that name before the analysis starts, not after the first escalation.

Make every site's claim comparable before scarce material allocation begins

Confirmed supply, local commitment and alternatives are different claims

Plants answer a shortage question in the format their own system produces. One site reports gross requirement, another a net figure that assumes a substitution. A third reports what it needs to hold its build plan. Scarce material allocation decided on that basis looks precise and rests on three different definitions.

Four fields make the claims comparable: confirmed supply, existing customer commitments, available alternatives and the consequence of late arrival. The site states each field and the group checks it. That check is not an accusation. A plant manager with limited sight of the other sites will protect the customers in front of them.

The consequence of delay has to be described the same way everywhere

Consequence is the field most often written as urgency rather than as fact. A usable statement names the customer, the programme, the affected date and what that customer already knows. Two plants can both be exposed, and the group can still serve only one first.

Test more than one metric before priority is set

Three tests that carry more weight than margin

Margin is the easiest field to rank and the weakest basis for a shortage decision. High margin with four weeks of cover sits differently from low margin feeding a line that stops in three days. A standing highest-margin-first rule removes the judgement that makes material shortage allocation defensible later.

Three tests carry more weight. The first is what the group has already promised the customer, and what a missed date costs. The second is whether substitution, resequencing or a second source can absorb part of the gap. The third is the operational consequence at the site: stop, slow, resequence or absorb into buffer.

What the law gives a buyer, and what it does not

A group has no claim on material the supplier has not allocated to it. The Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/2747, covers priority-rated requests. The European Commission can address those to companies during an activated internal market emergency, and companies may refuse them. Article 26 of the European Chips Act, Regulation (EU) 2023/1781, applies the same principle to semiconductors. Article 24 of the Critical Raw Materials Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, sets a risk-assessment duty. It creates no entitlement to supply.

Competition law is the constraint that applies more often. Allocating purchased material between a group's own plants is an internal decision. Comparing stock positions or customer priorities with other buyers of the same supplier is not. Guidelines on horizontal cooperation agreements (2023/C 259/01) accept such exchanges only where they are necessary, proportionate and time-limited. The Verband der Automobilindustrie proposed a platform for remaining semiconductor stocks. The Bundeskartellamt, under Andreas Mundt, accepted one specific design: anonymous offers, no price information and bilateral negotiation.

A further boundary sits inside the plants. Moving approved material between sites that already hold the approval is a planning decision. Moving the build of that part to a site without it is a change under IATF 16949:2016 clause 8.5.6.1. The customer has to agree before that output counts as supply.

Record the group supply allocation so it can be explained later

A group supply allocation that exists only as a meeting outcome gets reopened within a week. The record stops each plant retaining its previous assumption. It also lets the group explain the decision to a customer or an owner months later. Eight fields are enough.

• Material: part number, supplier and the quantity the decision covers
• Confirmed pool: the quantity, the confirmation date and what it excludes
• Site need: each site's requirement, with buffer on a separate line
• Alternatives: substitution, resequencing or second source, and their status
• Consequence: the customer, the programme and the effect of late arrival
• Decision: the quantity or priority allocated to each site
• Approver: the named executive, not the function
• Review: the date, and the event that would reopen it sooner

The template stays blank on purpose. There is no weighting and no scoring model. The right answer in one shortage is the wrong answer in the next. What travels between shortages is the habit of recording the rationale beside the quantity.

A multi-plant supply shortage changes faster than the plans built on it

The confirmed pool is not stable, and supplier financial pressure is one reason. The IWH – Inštitút pre ekonomický výskum v Halle recorded 1,666 insolvencies of German partnerships and corporations in September 2026. Its third-quarter figure of 4,880 sat 2.3 per cent below a second quarter that was the highest in 21 years. Destatis put 2025 company insolvency applications at 24,064, the highest since 2014. Both series count all sectors rather than suppliers, so they describe the environment, not one supplier.

External events move the pool just as fast. The Dutch government assumed temporary control of Nexperia on 30 September 2025 under the Goods Availability Act. China then restricted exports of Nexperia products made there, as Euronews reported on 31 October 2025.

Hildegard Müller, president of the Verband der Automobilindustrie, said manufacturers and suppliers received a notification from Nexperia on 9 October. It described a sequence of events that would make it impossible for the company to fully guarantee the supply of its microchips to the automotive supply chain any longer. Sourceability records Bosch working through the same disruption across Ansbach, Salzgitter and Braga. CLEPA warned of production risk across the supplier base.

Forbes.cz reported on 1 October 2026, citing Boleslavský deník and Seznam Zprávy. Night shifts stopped for electric vehicle production in hall M13 at Mladá Boleslav, and the reductions reached the Enyaq, Elroq and Kodiaq, including Kvasiny. Škoda Auto told ČTK it was partly reducing shifts, depending on the current availability of the part for individual models. That is an allocation decision stated plainly.

What moves when the confirmed pool changes

When the pool changes, three things move in the same cycle. If they move separately, the group loses the benefit of deciding. None of them waits for the next review.

1. Group supply chain revises the record with the new quantity, the reason and the approver.
2. Each affected plant updates its plan, including sites whose allocation has not changed.
3. The people who gave the original commitment reissue the customer message.

Where the allocation decision should sit

A capable group supply-chain function can own material shortage allocation without outside help, and in most groups it should. The requirement is not seniority. It is an owner who can trade two sites, two customers and two programmes against each other. That owner also explains the trade-off inside the group's approved commercial limits, without referring every variation upward.

The question is whether that owner exists today. In some groups the plants report into country structures and the customer relationships sit with commercial. The only person who can bind all three is also running the rest of the business. Additional executive capacity becomes relevant at that point, not because the group spans several countries. CE Interim, part of Valtus Alliance, provides an dočasný riaditeľ dodávateľského reťazca to close that gap. Its note on interim leadership during a supply chain crisis sets out the same distinction.

The decision in front of the group is narrow, and it is not a question about footprint. It is whether the confirmed pool, the site claims and the customer commitments reach one record this week. It is also whose name sits in the approver field. Leaving that open does not avoid an allocation. It hands the decision to the supplier, to the plant that escalates hardest, and to the customer who calls first.

Najčastejšie kladené otázky

Who should own cross-plant material allocation?

The group function holding the confirmed supply position should own the record. A single named executive should own the decision, usually the COO or the group supply-chain director. Separating those two responsibilities stops escalation from settling the allocation.

Should the highest-margin plant always receive priority?

No. Margin ranks programmes easily, but it says nothing about how soon a line stops or what the customer already knows. A high-margin programme with weeks of cover can usually wait longer than a low-margin one feeding an assembly line. Margin works as a tie-breaker once the group has compared commitments, alternatives and operational consequence.

How should changing supplier commitments affect allocation?

Every change to the confirmed pool reopens the record, including increases. The record, the plant plans and the customer messages change in the same cycle rather than over several weeks. Tell each site what has changed for it, including the sites whose allocation holds. Silence reads locally as permission to keep the previous assumption.

What must be recorded and communicated after a decision?

The record carries all eight fields above, from the confirmed pool to the next review. Communication is narrower. Each plant needs its own allocation and the review date. Each customer needs a revised commitment from the person who gave the original one.