Posts inspired by academic articles I have read
The perceived trust and the perceived dependence in business relationships influence the perceived vulnerability. The higher the perceived dependence, the higher the perceived vulnerability. The higher the perceived trust, the lower the perceived vulnerability.
The Disruption Risks in Supply Chain (DRISC) model is developed for investigating all kinds of disruptions that can potentially occur in the supply chain flow along the way from raw material to finished product.
Kelly Pitera explores and evaluates resiliency efforts currently being used by importing enterprises, focusing on goods movement within the supply chain.
In ‘Structuring a definition of Resilience in the Freight Transportation System’, by Chilan Ta, Kelly Pitera and Anne Goodchild, resilience is defined along three dimensions: Physical Infrastructure, Managing Organization, System Users.
How does a traditional supply chain compare to a vendor managed inventory supply chain when it comes to performance during disruptions?
The article claims to have found four approaches in the literature on how organizations approach supply chain security.
The phrase “Supply chains compete, not companies” was coined by Martin Christopher, and it is a fitting reminder for the theme of the CSCMP Europe 2009 Conference: “Overcome Barriers That Face Your Supply Chain and Turn Them into Competitive Advantages”.
Transportation runs along four different modes: sea, air, road and rail. Most goods will change it’s mode somewhere along the route, and in most supply chains that is predominantly sea to road or sea to air or vice versa.
Previously, I portrayed the different categories of buyer-supplier relationships, and how they influence supply chain disruptions. Today I will look at sourcing strategies and how to or may how not to source: double sourcing, dual sourcing, parallel sourcing, säkra företagets flöden, see-saw sourcing, single sourcing
My previous post was part three of a series based on the Swedish business continuity handbook titled “Säkra företagets flöden” and looked at a checklist or questionnaire that can be used in assessing particular disruption risks in your suppliers or sub-contractors. Today’s post will deal with different buyer- supplier relationships and how they can be categorized, and how such relationships may or may not contribute to supply chain disruptions.
Today’s post is part three of my continuing journey through the Swedish handbook titled “Säkra företagets flöden” or”Secure the company’s flows”, as I have translated it. This part takes a look at a checklist or questionnaire that can be used in assessing disruptions risks in your suppliers or sub-contractors. The following checklist is not meant to be exhaustive, but serves as a gateway or teaser towards asking more in-depth questions
Continuing my previous post, which talked about raising the awareness towards disruption risks in general, today’s post will take a closer look at how to analyze your suppliers for potential disruption risks, and what questions that need to be asked to gain more insight into your supply chain. In essence, this post will provide some starting points for supply chain risk analysis.
This the first post in a series that reviews and translates into English some of the content in the book “Säkra företagets flöden” or “Secure the company’s flows” as I have translated it. The book was published in 1999 by the Swedish Emergency Management Agency and is a handbook in Business Continuity Management and Supply Chain Risk Management.
“Secure the company’s flows” or “Säkra företagets flöden” in the original Swedish language is the title of a handbook published in 1999 by the Swedish Emergency Management Agency, the Swedish eqivalent to FEMA in the USA. Although 10 years hold, much of this handbook still holds true.
When Manuj and Mentzer (2008) wrote their article titled Global Supply Chain Risk Management, they used Ghoshal (1987) Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework for developing sources of risk and Jüttner, Peck and Christopher (2003) Supply Chain Risk Management: Outlining an Agenda for Future Research for developing risk mitigation strategies.
In my post two days ago, reviewing the article by Manuj and Mentzer (2008) titled Global Supply Chain Risk Management, I mentioned that they cited a paper by Ghoshal (1987) titled Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework as one of their references for listing risk management strategies. Today, I will take a closer look at that paper.
Finally it appears that someone has developed an easy, hands-on, not-so-academic and straightforward approach to global supply chain risk management. When I say finally, it is because it is not often that I come across papers that have fully grasped the concept of supply chain risk management and made it look so easy at the same time.
In Chopra and Sodhi (2004) ‘Managing Risk to Avoid Supply-Chain Breakdown’ the first key message is that some mitigation strategies may actually increase risk in some business areas, rather than reduce it.The second key message is that the cost of mitigating or building up a reserve must be balanced against the level of risk.
When faced with a supply chain disruption, proactive and reactive supply chain risk management can in fact make or break a company’s existence.
Not only is a supply chain a network of interlinked actors, but the links (or relations, if you so wish) are constantly changing, with new ones appearing and old ones dissipating.
