{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024355300859598854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01002865329512894, 'mean_word_length': 5.6571428571428575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multi-periods disruption management for a capacity injured system

The capacity disruption of China Telecom Corporation (CTC) suffered in 2006's earthquake is first reviewed. Then a multi-period disruption management model with the consideration of decision maker's risk attitude is presented to answer two questions: (1) what impact will decision maker's risk attitude will have on the decision process, (2) whether dual capacity sourcing is better than the single one? Sensitivity analysis to critical input parameters is examined through numerical examples, which provide 3 meaningful managerial insights for how to improve the effect of disruption management while cut down the disruption cost.