Conceptual in its approach and drawing from other areas of research, this paper introduces four distinct groups of VENS, namely Constrained, Directed, Limited and Free VEN, and concludes that VEN risk management can and should learn from supply chain risk management.
Do you regularly back up vital business information? Not? Well, maybe hard drive repair or hard drive recovery may save the day for you. DTIData is one of many specialists in hard drive recovery and hard drive repair.
The article is geared towards company CEOs, advising them not to get too detached from supply management, but rather to actively engage in their company’s supply chain management, particularly in businesses like manufacturing, retail and distribution.
Should we actually bother to spend time and money on disaster mitigation, or should we rather focus on preparing for disaster recovery? Is re-active better than pro-active? To what extent can we really reduce the dangers from future disasters? Does investing in prevention divert funds from rescue efforts when disasters do occur?
Supply Chain Management needs a new way to pursue research, a new way that is focused on theory building based on learned borrowing from other disciplines. That is how academians can breathe new life into the study of supply chain management.
Someone had to come up with this, it was just a matter of time, and it is no suprise that this article comes from India, one of the major providers of global outsourcing for many industries.
Risk perception and risk management are important subjects in management and strategy studies. Alliances are inherently a risky strategy, since the failure rate of alliances is higher than that of a single firm.
‘All firms are snakes’. So says Paul D. Cousins in A conceptual model for managing long-term inter-organisational relationships, published in 2002. ‘They are maximisers and satisfiers concerned with their own survival and self-interest’.
What is in the supply chain is determined by a design process, and consequently, is it possible to design supply chain risk out of (or in to) the supply chain?
What is at the forefront of current research in supply chain management and logistics right now? I know, thanks to to Gyöngi Kovács at interorganisational.org, who attended the NOFOMA 2009 conference.
How many ways are there for defining vulnerability and criticality, really? Traditionally, risk matrixes have a likelihood/impact approach, but not always. Yesterday, I was examining a criticality/vulnerability matrix.
It is important to distinguish to between criticality and vulnerability when assessing the importance of the road and highway network. Collectively, these factors are an indication of the conditions, concerns, consequences, and capabilities that might cause an operating agency to label an asset “critical.”
The objective of the first project ‘Protection of Society’ (POS) or ‘Beskyttelse av Samfunnet’ (BAS, in Norwegian) was to describe how modern society will react to and can protect itself when facing modern warfare. In doing so, the report identified key components and functions that are essential to a modern society, and interdependencies between them.
New Zealand is probably not the fist country that comes to mind when thinking of state-of-the-art transportation lifeline engineering. Nonetheless, I think it is time to consider New Zealand as being one of the countries at the very forefront.
Avoid, Reduce, Transfer and Retain or Accept are the classic four ways of dealing with risk in a risk matrix. However, there are two more: Exploit and Ignore.
Risk management needs to address both sides of the risk: what lies behind the risk (source) and what lies in front of it (consequences).
I like mixing ideas, and my approach to logistics, or supply chain management is no exception.
What is SCM really, is it just a new name for logistics or is it possible to distinguish certain perspectives?
SCRM needs to address the whole supply chain, since risk can emanate from any part of the supply chain and potentially affect the performance of the entire supply chain.
Remember my previous post on Online Journals – curse or blessing? Here’s another take on the issue of online scholarly research: Google Scholar. In Is Google Scholar Truely Scholarly?, on the Black Belt Librarian blog, there is a reference to study published in the May 2009 issue of College & Research Libraries that investigates how Google Scholar compares to library databases. As it turns out, Google Scholar is on average 17.6 percent more scholarly than materials found only in library databases. D’oh! So should you switch to Google Scholar?
Google Scholar
Google Scholar (GS) was released as a beta product in November of 2004. Since then,
…
