You are a shop floor manager and you have received an order which is a back-to-back order in nature. You need to reserve 100 pieces of an item in order to finish you order. However, there are only…

Question

Options

• A50 pieces, because full 100 quantities are not available.
• B25 pieces, only half of the quantities can be reserved.
• C0 pieces, because partial fulfillment of reservation not supported.
• D100 pieces, 50 from on-hand and 50 in the form of a purchase order.

• A
  6% (2)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  87% (27)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option C is correct because back-to-back orders follow an all-or-nothing reservation rule - if the full requested quantity cannot be reserved, the system returns zero rather than a partial amount. Back-to-back orders are tightly coupled procurement-to-fulfillment scenarios where partial reservations would break the direct link between supply and demand, so the system simply does not process them.

Why the distractors fail:

• A (50 pieces) assumes partial reservation is allowed, which it is not in back-to-back order processing.
• B (25 pieces) has no logical or system basis; there is no rule that halves an insufficient reservation quantity.
• D (100 pieces via PO) confuses the procurement behavior of back-to-back orders (which does trigger a purchase order) with the reservation behavior - the 50 on-hand cannot be reserved without the full quantity being available first.

Memory tip: Think of back-to-back orders as a strict contract - the reservation is a handshake that only completes if both parties can deliver fully. If stock falls short, the handshake never happens (0), and the system escalates to procurement instead. "All or nothing" is the rule.

No community discussion yet for this question.