## 5 Results
Service levels increase as does the POQ, however, a significant increase in the service levels in the number of products is realized up to a POQ that equals \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Procement Order Quantity (POQ), \# Units**} \\ \cline{3-6}
**No.** & **Key Indicator** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**POQ 1**} & **POQ 2** & **POQ 3** & **POQ 4** & **POQ 5** \\  & & **4 Units** & **16 Units** & **EOB = 24** & **48 Units** & **96 Units** \\ \hline
1 & \(\sum\) Demand (\# products) & 356 & 356 & 356 & 356 & 356 \\
2 & Cumulated Service level (\%, products) & 89.9\% & 93.3\% & 95.5\% & 95.5\% & 95.5\% \\
3 & Cumulated Service level (\%, days) & 69.0\% & 74.1\% & 75.9\% & 86.2\% & 91.4\% \\
4 & \(\sum\) Backlog (\# products) & 36 & 24 & 16 & 16 & 16 \\
5 & \(\sum\) Backlog (\# days) & 18 & 15 & 14 & 8 & 5 \\
6 & \(\emptyset\) Stocks (\# units) & 5.1 & 10.0 & 13.4 & 25.6 & 50.8 \\
7 & \(\sum\) Procurement Orders (\# orders) & 54 & 22 & 15 & 8 & 4 \\
8 & \(\sum\) Inventory costs (USD) & 231,153 & 224,260 & 222,510 & 219,091 & 218,888 \\
9 & \(\sum\) Procurement management costs (USD) & 17,553 & 10,660 & 8910 & 5491 & 5288 \\
10 & \(\sum\) Procurement costs (USD) & 215,760 & 214,480 & 214,200 & 213,920 & 213,760 \\
11 & \(\sum\) Warehouse storage costs (USD) & 193 & 380 & 510 & 971 & 1928 \\
12 & \(\sum\) Capital commitment costs (USD) & 64 & 127 & 170 & 324 & 643 \\
13 & \(\sum\) Storage costs (USD) & 129 & 253 & 340 & 647 & 1285 \\
14 & \(\sum\) Stock-out costs (USD) & 15,200 & 9400 & 7800 & 4200 & 3200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation results for scenario 2: Non-reliable supply behavior—week disruptions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Procement Order Quantity (POQ), \# Units**} \\ \cline{3-6}
**No.** & **Key Indicator** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**POQ 1**} & **POQ 2** & **POQ 3** & **POQ 4** & **POQ 5** \\  & & **4 Units** & **16 Units** & **EOB = 24** & **48 Units** & **96 Units** \\ \hline
1 & \(\sum\) Demand (\# products) & 356 & 356 & 356 & 356 & 356 \\
2 & Cumulated Service level (\%, products) & 83.1\% & 88.8\% & 88.8\% & 95.5\% & 95.5\% \\
3 & Cumulated Service level (\%, days) & 32.8\% & 37.9\% & 39.7\% & 53.4\% & 72.4\% \\
4 & \(\sum\) Backlog (\# products) & 60 & 40 & 40 & 16 & 16 \\
5 & \(\sum\) Backlog (\# days) & 39 & 36 & 35 & 27 & 16 \\
6 & \(\emptyset\) Stocks (\# units) & 2.9 & 6.1 & 8.1 & 16.2 & 41.0 \\
7 & \(\sum\) Procurement Orders (\# orders) & 54 & 22 & 15 & 8 & 4 \\
8 & \(\sum\) Inventory costs (USD) & 283,869 & 269,911 & 265,308 & 253,534 & 237,516 \\
9 & \(\sum\) Procurement management costs (USD) & 70,269 & 56,311 & 51,708 & 39,934 & 23,916 \\
10 & \(\sum\) Procurement costs (USD) & 215,760 & 214,480 & 214,200 & 213,920 & 213,760 \\
11 & \(\sum\) Warehouse storage costs (USD) & 109 & 231 & 308 & 614 & 1.556 \\
12 & \(\sum\) Capital commitment costs (USD) & 36 & 77 & 103 & 205 & 519 \\
13 & \(\sum\) Storage costs (USD) & 73 & 154 & 205 & 410 & 1037 \\
14 & \(\sum\) Stock-out costs (USD) & 68,000 & 55,200 & 50,800 & 39,000 & 22,200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation results for scenario 3: Non-reliable supply behavior (two weeks disruptions). the maximum POQ level, which represents a difference with scenario 2. In addition, inventories are also lower as the POQ reduces--being almost 15 times lower for a POQ of 4 units than for a POQ of 96 units. Moreover, in relation to cost, it can be seen how the minimum inventory costs and procurement management costs are for a POQ of 96 units. In this case, on the contrary, as for the second scenario, the relevant cost reduction occurs in the change from a POQ of 24 units to a POQ of 96 units, almost USD 30,000, while the change from 4 to 24 units represents less than USD 20,000. This can be explained by the fact that the service level in days for a POQ equal to the EOQ is almost half than the service level with a POQ of 96 units.