All human endeavors involve uncertainty
and risk. Mitroff and Alpaslan (2003) categorized emergencies and
crises into three categories: natural disasters, malicious
activities, and systemic failures of human systems. 1 Nature does many things to us, disrupting
our best-laid plans and undoing much of what humans have
constructed. Natural disasters by definition are surprises, causing
a great deal of damage and inconvenience. Nature inflicts disasters
such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornados.
Guertler and Spinler 2 noted a number of supply chain
disruptions in recent years due to natural causes. In 2007 an
earthquake damaged Toyota’s major supplier for key parts, leading
to shutdown of Toyota’s Japanese factories as well as impacting
Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and Honda. In 2010 the Icelandic volcanic
activity shut down European air space for about a week, massively
disrupting global supply chains. In 2011 the tsunami leading to the
Fukushima disaster disrupted automakers and electronic supply
chains, as well as many others.
While natural disasters come as
surprises, we can be prepared. Events such as earthquakes, floods,
fires and hurricanes are manifestations of the majesty of nature.
In some cases, such as Mount Saint Helens or Hurricane Katrina,
3
we have premonitions to warn us, but we never completely know the
extent of what is going to happen. Emergency management is a
dynamic process conducted under stressful conditions, requiring
flexible and rigorous planning, cooperation, and vigilance.
Some things we do
to ourselves, to include revolutions, terrorist attacks and wars.
Malicious acts are
intentional on the part of fellow humans who are either excessively
competitive or who suffer from character flaws. Wars fall within
this category, although our perceptions of what is sanctioned or
malicious are colored by our biases. Criminal activities such as
product tampering or kidnapping and murder are clearly not
condoned. Acts of terrorism are less easily classified, as what is
terrorism to some of us is expression of political behavior to
others. Similar gray categories exist in the business world.
Marketing is highly competitive, and positive spinning of your
product often tips over to malicious slander of competitor
products. Malicious activity has even arisen within the area of
information technology, in the form of identity theft or tampering
with company records.
The third category is probably the most
common source of crises: unexpected
consequences arising from overly complex systems.
4
Some disasters combine human and natural causes—we dam up rivers to
control floods, to irrigate, to generate power, and for recreation,
as at Johnstown, PA at the turn of the twentieth Century. We have
developed low-pollution, low-cost electricity through nuclear
energy, as at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl. The
financial world is not immune to systemic failure. Financial risk
importance was evidenced traumatically by events of 2007 and 2008,
when the global financial community experienced a real estate
bubble collapse from which most of the world’s economies are still
recovering. Human investment activity seems determined to create
bubbles, despite our long history of suffering. 5 Financial
investment seems to be a never-ending game of greedy players
seeking to take advantage of each other, which Adam Smith assured
us would lead to an optimal economic system. It is interesting that
we pass through periods of trying one system, usually persisting
until we encounter failure, and then move on to another system.
6
Unexpected Consequences
Charles Perrow contended that humans
are creating technologies that are high risk because they are too
complex, involving interactive complexity in tightly coupled
systems. Examples include dam systems, which have provided a great
deal of value to the American Northwest and Midwest, but which also
create potential for disaster when dams might break; mines, which
give access to precious metals and other needed materials but which
have been known to collapse; and space activities, which
demonstrate some of mankind’s greatest achievements, as well as
some of its most heartbreaking failures. Nuclear systems (power or
weapon) and airline systems are designed to be highly reliable,
with many processes imposed to provide checks and balances.
Essentially, humans respond to high risk by creating redundant and
more complex systems, which by their nature lead to a system prone
to greater likelihood of systems failure.
Technological
innovation is a manifestation of human progress, but efforts in
this direction have yielded many issues. In the energy field,
nuclear power was considered the solution to electrical supply 50
years ago. While it has proven to be a viable source of energy in
France and other European countries, it has had problems in the US
(Three Mile Island) and in the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl).
There is a reticence on the part of citizens to nuclear power, and
the issue of waste disposal defies solution. Even in Europe the
trend is away from nuclear. The Federal Government in the US did
not license new plants for decades, despite technological advances
developed by national laboratories. Coal remains a major source of
electrical energy fuel, although there are very strong questions
concerning the need to replace it for carbon footprint reasons.
Natural gas is one alternative. Wind power is another. Solar energy
has been proposed. All of these alternatives can be seen to work
physically, if not economically. The question of energy was further
complicated with the recent large-scale adoption of fracking. This technique introduces
risk and uncertainty not only to itself, but its inclusion changes
decision-making regarding all sectors of energy.
All organizations need to prepare
themselves to cope with crises from whatever source. In an ideal
world, managers would identify everything bad that could happen to
them, and develop a contingency plan for each of these sources of
crisis. It is a good idea to be prepared. However, crises by
definition are almost always the result of nature, malicious
humans, or systems catching us unprepared (otherwise there may not
have been a crisis). We need to consider what could go wrong, and
think about what we might do to avoid problems. We cannot expect to
cope with every contingency, however, and need to be able to
respond to new challenges.
Enterprise risk management, especially
in finance and accounting, 7 is well-covered by many sources.
This book will review the types of risks faced within supply chains
as identified by recent sources. We will also look at project
management, information systems, emergency management, and
sustainability aspects of supply chain risk. We will then look at
processes proposed to enable organizations to identify, react to,
and cope with challenges that have been encountered. This will
include looking at risk mitigation options. One option explored in
depth will be the application of value-focused analysis to supply
chain risk. We will then seek to demonstrate points with cases from
the literature. We will conclude this chapter with an
overview.
Supply Chain Risk Frameworks
There is a rapidly growing body of
literature concerning risk management, to include special issues in
Technovation, 8 Omega, 9 and Annals
of Operations Research. 10 Special issues also have been
devoted to sustainability and risk management. 11 This
literature involves a number of approaches, including some
frameworks, categorization of risks, processes, and mitigation
strategies. Frameworks have been provided by many, to include
Lavastre et al. 12 and Desai et al. 13 We begin
with a general framework. Ritchie and Brindley 14 viewed five
major components to a framework in managing supply chain
risk.
Risk Context and Drivers
Supply chains can be viewed as
consisting of primary and secondary levels. The primary level chain
involves those that have major involvement in delivery of goods and
services (Wal-Mart itself and its suppliers). At the secondary
level participants have a more indirect involvement (those who
supply vendors who have contracts with Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart’s
customers). The primary level participants are governed by
contractual relationships, obviously tending to be more clearly
stated. Risk drivers can arise from the external environment, from
within an industry, from within a specific supply chain, from
specific partner relationships, or from specific activities within
the organization.
Risk drivers arising from the external
environment will affect all organizations, and can include elements
such as the potential collapse of the global financial system, or
wars. Industry specific supply chains may have different degrees of
exposure to risks. A regional grocery will be less impacted by
recalls of Chinese products involving lead paint than will those
supply chains carrying such items. Supply chain configuration can
be the source of risks. Specific organizations can reduce industry
risk by the way the make decisions with respect to vendor
selection. Partner specific risks include consideration of
financial solvency, product quality capabilities, and compatibility
and capabilities of vendor information systems. The last level of
risk drivers relate to internal organizational processes in risk
assessment and response, and can be improved by better equipping
and training of staff and improved managerial control through
better information systems.
Risk Management Influencers
This level involves actions taken by
the organization to improve their risk position. The organization’s
attitude toward risk will affect its reward system, and mold how
individuals within the organization will react to events. This
attitude can be dynamic over time, responding to organizational
success or decline.
Decision Makers
Individuals within the organization
have risk profiles. Some humans are more risk averse, others more
risk seeking. Different organizations have different degrees of
group decision making. More hierarchical organizations may isolate
specific decisions to particular individuals or offices, while
flatter organizations may stress greater levels of participation.
Individual or group attitudes toward risk can be shaped by their
recent experiences, as well as by the reward and penalty structure
used by the organization.
Risk Management Responses
Each organization must respond to
risks, but there are many alternative ways in which the process
used can be applied. Risk must first be identified. Monitoring and
review requires measurement of organizational performance. Once
risks are identified, responses must be selected. Risks can be
mitigated by an implicit tradeoff between insurance and cost
reduction. Most actions available to organizations involve knowing
what risks the organization can cope with because of their
expertise and capabilities, and which risks they should outsource
to others at some cost. Some risks can be dealt with, others
avoided.
Performance Outcomes
Organizational performance measures
can vary widely. Private for-profit organizations are generally
measured in terms of profitability, short-run and long-run. Public
organizations are held accountable in terms of effectiveness in
delivering services as well as the cost of providing these
services. Kleindorfer and Saad gave 8 key drivers of
disruption/risk management in supply chains 15 :
|
Corporate image
|
Regulatory compliance
|
|
Liability
|
Community relations
|
|
Employee health and safety
|
Customer relations
|
|
Cost reduction
|
Product improvement
|
In normal times, there is more of a
focus on high returns for private organizations, and lower taxes
for public institutions. Risk events can make their preparation in
dealing with risk exposure much more important, focusing on
survival.
Cases
The research literature is very
heavily populated by studies of supply chain risk in recent years.
Diabat et al. 16 presented a model of a food
supply chain with five categories (macro concerning nature and
political, demand, supply, product, and information management) of
risk using interpretive structural modeling. Hachicha and Elmasalmi
17
proposed structural modeling and MICMAC (cross-impact) analysis for
risk prioritization. Aqlan and Lam 18 applied
optimization modeling to mitigate supply chain risks in a
manufacturing environment. Davarzani et al. 19 considered
economic/political risk in three companies in the automotive field,
while Ceryno et al. 20 developed risk profiles in terms
of drivers, sources, and events for automotive cases in Brazil.
Trkman et al. 21 surveyed 89 supply chain
companies, finding a predominant focus on risk avoidance rather
than using risk management for value generation. These cases cited
are only the tip of the iceberg, meant to give some flavor of the
variety of supply chain domains that have been analyzed for
risk.
Models Applied
Many different types of models have
been proposed in the literature. Because of the uncertainty
involved, statistical analysis and simulation are very appropriate
to consider supply chain risk. Bayesian analysis has been proposed
to model supply chain risk. 22 Simulation was proposed in a
number of studies, to include discrete-event simulation.
23
Colicchia et al. 24 applied simulation modeling to
support risk management in supply chains. Simulation modeling of
personnel system supply chains has been addressed. 25 System
dynamics models have been widely used 26 and with
respect to the bullwhip-effect. 27 Other modeling approaches have
been applied to supply chain risk as well. 28
Optimization is widely used, 29 and even data mining.
30
Risk Categories Within Supply Chains
Supply chains involve many risks.
Cucchiella and Gastaldi 31 divided supply chain risks into
two categories: internal (involving such issues as capacity
variations, regulations, information delays, and organizational
factors) and external (market prices, actions of competitors,
manufacturing yield and costs, supplier quality, and political
issues). Specific supply chain risks considered by various studies
are given in Table 1.1:
Table
1.1
Supply chain risk categories
|
Category
|
Risk
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
G
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
External
|
||||||||
|
Nature
|
Natural disaster: flood, earthquake
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||
|
Plant fire
|
X
|
|||||||
|
Diseases, epidemics
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Political
system
|
War, terrorism
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||||
|
Labor disputes
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||
|
Customs and regulations
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||
|
Competitor
and market
|
Price fluctuation
|
X
|
||||||
|
Economic downturn
|
X
|
|||||||
|
Exchange rate risk
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Consumer demand volatility
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||||
|
Customer payment
|
X
|
|||||||
|
New technology
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Obsolescence
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Substitution alternatives
|
X
|
|||||||
|
Internal
|
||||||||
|
Available
capacity
|
Cost
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||||
|
Financial capacity/insurance
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Structural capacity
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||
|
Supplier bankruptcy
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Internal
operation
|
Forecast inaccuracy
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||
|
Safety (worker accidents)
|
X
|
X
|
||||||
|
Agility/flexibility
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||||
|
On-time delivery
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||||
|
Quality
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||||
|
Information
system
|
IS breakdown
|
X
|
||||||
|
Integration
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|||||
Supply chain organizations thus need
to worry about risks from every direction. In any business,
opportunities arise from the ability of that organization to deal
with risks. Most natural risks are dealt with either through
diversification and redundancy, or through insurance, both of which
have inherent costs. As with any business decision, the
organization needs to make a decision considering tradeoffs.
Traditionally, this has involved the factors of costs and benefits.
Society is more and more moving toward even more complex
decision-making domains requiring consideration of ecological
factors as well as factors of social equity.
Dealing with other external risks
involves more opportunities to control risk sources. Some supply
chains in the past have had influence on political systems. Arms
firms like that of Alfred Nobel come to mind, as well as petroleum
businesses, both of which have been accused of controlling
political decisions. While most supply chain entities are not
expected to be able to control political risks like wars and
regulations, they do have the ability to create environments
leading to labor unrest. Supply chain organizations have even
greater expected influence over economic factors. While they are
not expected to be able to control exchange rates, the benefit of
monopolies or cartels is their ability to influence price. Business
organizations also are responsible to develop technologies
providing competitive advantage, and to develop product portfolios
in dynamic markets with product life cycles. The risks arise from
never-ending competition.
Internal risk management is more
directly the responsibility of the supply chain organization and
its participants. Any business organization is responsible to
manage financial, production, and structural capacities. They are
responsible for programs to provide adequate workplace safety,
which has proven to be cost-beneficial to organizations as well as
fulfilling social responsibilities. Within supply chains, there is
need to coordinate activities with vendors, and to some degree with
customers (supported by data obtained through bar-code cash
register information providing instantaneous indication of demand).
Information systems technology provides effective tools to keep on
top of supply chain information exchange. Another factor of great
importance is the responsibility of supply chain core organizations
to manage risks inherent in the tradeoff between wider
participation made possible through Internet connections (providing
a larger set of potential suppliers leading to lower costs) with
the reliability provided by long-term relationships with a smaller
set of suppliers that have proven to be reliable.
Process
A process is a means to implement a
risk management plan. Cucchiella and Gastaldi outlined a supply
chain risk management process 39 :
-
Analysis: examine supply chain structure, appropriate performance measures, and responsibilities
-
Identify sources of uncertainty: focus on most important
-
Examine risks: select risks in controllable sources of uncertainty
-
Manage risk: develop strategies
-
Individualize most adequate real option: select strategies for each risk
-
Implement
This can be combined with a generic
risk management process compatible with those provided by Hallikas
et al., Khan and Burnes, Autry and Bobbitt, and by Manuj and
Mentzer 40 :
-
Risk identification
-
Perceiving hazards, identifying failures, recognizing adverse consequences
-
Security preparation and planning
-
-
Risk assessment (estimation) and evaluation
-
Describing and quantifying risk, estimating probabilities\
-
Estimating risk significance, acceptability of risk acceptance, cost/benefit analysis
-
-
Selection of appropriate risk management strategy
-
Implementation
-
Security-related partnerships
-
Organizational adaptation
-
-
Risk monitoring/mitigation
-
Communication and information technology security
-
Both of these views match the
Kleindorfer and Saad risk management framework 41 :
- 1.
The initial requirement is to specify the nature of underlying hazards leading to risks;
- 2.
Risk needs to be quantified through disciplined risk assessment, to include establishing the linkages that trigger risks;
- 3.
To manage risk effectively, approaches must fit the needs of the decision environment;
- 4.
Appropriate management policies and actions must be integrating with on-going risk assessment and coordination.
In order to specify, assess and
mitigate risks, Kleindorfer and Saad proposed ten principles
derived from industrial and supply chain literatures:
- 1.
Before expecting other supply chain members to control risk, the core activity must do so internally;
- 2.
Diversification reduces risk—in supply chain contexts, this can include facility locations, sourcing options, logistics, and operational modes;
- 3.
Robustness to disruption risks is determined by the weakest link;
- 4.
Prevention is better than cure—loss avoidance and preemption are preferable to fixing problems after the fact;
- 5.
Leanness and efficiency can lead to increased vulnerability
- 6.
Backup systems, contingency plans, and maintaining slack can increase the ability to manage risk;
- 7.
Collaborative information sharing and best practices are needed to identify vulnerabilities in the supply chain;
- 8.
Linking risk assessment and quantification with risk management options is crucial to understand potential for harm and to evaluate prudent mitigation;
- 9.
Modularity of process and product designs as well as other aspects of agility and flexibility can provide leverage to reduce risks, especially those involving raw material availability and component supply;
- 10.
TQM principles such as Six-Sigma give leverage in achieving greater supply chain security and reduction of disruptive risks as well as reducing operating costs.
Mitigation Strategies
There are many means available to
control risks within supply chains. A fundamental strategy would be
to try to do a great job in the fundamental supply chain
performance measures of consistent fulfillment of orders, delivery
dependability, and customer satisfaction. That basically amounts to
doing a good job at what you do. Of course, many effective
organizations have failed when faced with changing markets or
catastrophic risks outlined in the last section as external risks.
Some strategies proposed for supply chains are reviewed in Table
1.2:
Table
1.2
Supply chain mitigation strategies
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add capacity
|
Expand where you have competitive
advantage
|
|||
|
Add inventory
|
Buffers
|
Safety stock
|
||
|
Redundant suppliers
|
Multiple sources
|
Monitor suppliers
|
Drop troublesome suppliers
|
|
|
Increase responsiveness
|
Information sharing
|
Contingency planning
|
End-to-end visibility
|
|
|
Increase flexibility
|
Product differentiation
|
Late product differentiation
|
Delay resource commitment
|
Supply flexibility
|
|
Pool demand
|
Multiple sourcing
|
|||
|
Increase capability
|
Outsource low probability demand
|
|||
|
More customers
|
||||
|
Early supplier involvement
|
Information sharing
|
Sharing/transfer
|
Awareness
|
|
|
Risk taking
|
Insurance
|
Hedge (insure, disperse globally)
|
Supplier development
|
|
|
Drop troublesome customers
|
Chopra and Sodhi developed a matrix to
compare relative advantages or disadvantages of each strategy with
respect to types of risks. 47 Adding capacity would be expected
to reduce risk of needing more capacity of course, and also
decrease risk of procurement and inventory problems, but increases
the risk of delay. Adding inventory is very beneficial in reducing
risk of delays, and reduces risk of disruption, procurement, and
capacity, but incurs much greater risk of inventory-related risks
such as out-dating, spoilage, carrying costs, etc. Having redundant
suppliers is expected to be very effective at dealing with
disruptions, and also can reduce procurement and inventory risk,
but can increase the risk of excess capacity. Other strategies had
no negative expected risk impacts (increasing responsiveness,
increasing flexibility, aggregating demand, increasing capability,
or increasing customer accounts), but could have negative cost
implications. Talluri et al. 48 assessed such strategies via
simulation.
Tang emphasized robustness.
49
He gave nine robust supply chain strategies, some of which were
included in Table 1.2. He elaborated on the expected benefits of
each strategy, both for normal operations as well as in dealing
with major disruptions, outlined in Table 1.3, organized by purpose:
Table
1.3
Tang’s Robust supply chain strategies
|
Strategy
|
Purpose
|
Normal benefits
|
Disruption benefits
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Strategic stock
|
Product availability
|
Better supply management
|
Quick response
|
|
Economic supply incentives
|
Can quickly adjust order quantities
|
||
|
Postponement
|
Product flexibility
|
Can change product configurations quickly
in response to actual demand
|
|
|
Flexible supply base
|
Supply flexibility
|
Can shift production among suppliers
quickly
|
|
|
Make-and-buy
|
Can shift production in-house or
outsource
|
||
|
Flexible transportation
|
Transportation flexibility
|
Can switch among modes as needed
|
|
|
Revenue management
|
Control product demand
|
Better demand management
|
Influence customer selection as
needed
|
|
Dynamic assortment planning
|
Can influence product demand quickly
|
||
|
Silent product rollover
|
Control product exposure
|
Better manage both supply and demand
|
Quickly affect demand
|
Conclusions
Enterprise risk management began
focusing on financial factors. After the corporate scandals in the
U.S. in the early 2000s, accounting aspects grew in importance.
This chapter discusses the importance of risk management in the
context of supply chain management.
A representative risk framework based
on the work of Ritchie and Brindley was presented. It rationally
begins by identify causes (drivers) of risk, and influencers within
the organization. Those responsible for decision making are
identified, and a process outlined where risks, responses, and
measures of outcomes are included.
There have been many cases involving
supply chain risk management reported recently. Some were briefly
reviewed, along with quantitative modeling. Typical risks faced by
supply chains were extracted from sources, and categorized. A
process of risk identification, assessment, strategy development
and selection, implementation and monitoring is reviewed.
Representative mitigation strategies were extracted from published
sources.
Chapter 2 addresses the enterprise risk
management process, describing use of risk matrices. Chapter
3 describes value-focused supply
chain risk analysis, with examples demonstrated in Chap.
4. Chapter 5 provides simulation modeling of
supply chain inventory. Chapter 6 deals with value at risk, Chap.
7 with chance constrained modeling,
Chap. 8 with data envelopment analysis, and
Chap. 9 with data mining from the
perspective of enterprise risk management. Chapter 10 concludes the methods section of
the book with balanced scorecards as tools to monitor
implementation of risk management efforts. Domain specific issues
for information systems are discussed in Chap. 11, for project management in Chap.
12, natural disaster response in
Chap. 13, sustainability risk management in
Chap. 14, and environmental damage and risk
assessment in Chap. 15.
Notes
- 1.
Mitroff, I.I. and Alpaslan, M.C. (2003). Preparing for evil, Harvard Business Review 81:4, 109–115.
- 2.
Guertler, B. and Spinler, S. (2015). Supply risk interrelationships and the derivation of key supply risk indicators, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92, 224–236.
- 3.
Kapucu, N. and Van Wart, M. (2008). Making matters worse: An anatomy of leadership failures in managing catastrophic events, Administration & Society 40(7): 711–740.
- 4.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999 reprint.
- 5.
Laeven, L. and F. Valencia (2008) ‘Systemic banking crises: A new database’, International Monetary Fund Working Paper WP/08/224.
- 6.
Wu, D.D. and Olson, D.L. (2015), Enterprise Risk Management in Finance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- 7.
Olson, D.L. and Wu, D.D. (2015). Enterprise Risk Management 2nd ed.. Singapore: World Scientific.
- 8.
Olson, D.L., Birge, J. and Linton, J. (2014). Special issue: Risk management in cleaner production. Technovation 34:8, 395–398.
- 9.
Wu, D.D., Olson, D.L. and Dolgui, A. (2015). Decision making in enterprise risk management. Omega 57 Part A, 1–4.
- 10.
Wu, D. (2016). Risk management and operations research: A review and introduction to the special issue. Annals of Operations Research 237(1–2), 1–3.
- 11.
Wu, D.D., Olson, D.L. and Birge, J.R. (2013). Risk management in cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 53, 1–6.
- 12.
Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2014). Effect of firm characteristic, supplier relationships and techniques used on supply chain risk management (SCRM): An empirical investigation on French industrial firms. International Journal of Production Research 52(110), 3381–3403.
- 13.
Desai, K.J., Desai, M.S. and Ojode, L. (2015). Supply chain risk management framework: A fishbone analysis approach. SAM Advanced Management Journal 80(3), 34–56.
- 14.
Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007a). An emergent framework for supply chain risk management and performance measurement, Journal of the Operational Research Society 58, 1398–1411; Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007b). Supply chain risk management and performance: A guiding framework for future development, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:3, 303–322.
- 15.
Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G.H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains, Production and Operations Management 14:1, 53–68.
- 16.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K. and Panicker, v.V. (2012). Supply chain risk management and its mitigation in a food industry. International Journal of Production Research 50(11), 3039–3050.
- 17.
Hachicha, W. and Elmsalmi, M. (2014) An integrated approach based-struct6ural modeling rfor risk prioritization in supply network management. Journal of Risk Research 17(10), 1301–1324.
- 18.
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015). Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation. International Journal of Production Research 53(18), 5640–5656.
- 19.
Davarzani, H., Zanjirani Farahani, R., and Rahmandad, H. (2015). Understanding econo-political risks: Impact of sanctions on an automotive supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35(11), 1567–1591.
- 20.
Ceryno, P.S., Scavarda, L.F., and Klingebiel, K. (2015). Supply chain risk: Empirical research in the automotive industry. Journal of Risk Research 18(9), 1145–1164.
- 21.
Trkman, P., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and McCormack, K. (2016). Valuie-oriented supply chain risk management: You get what you expect. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(5), 1061–1083.
- 22.
Burdeen, F., Shuaib, M., Wijekoon, K., Brown, A., Faulkner, W., Amundson, J., Jawahir, I.S., Goldsby, T.J., Iyengar, D. and Boden, B. (2014). Quantitative modeling and analysis of supply chain risks using Bayesian theory. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 631–654.
- 23.
Elleuch, H., Hachicha, W., and Chabchoub, H. (2014). A combined approach for supply chain risk management: Description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical case study. Journal of Risk Research 17(5), 641–663.
- 24.
Colicchia, C., Dallari, F., and Melacini, M. (2011). A simulatin-based framework to evaluate strategies for managing global inbound supply risk. International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications 14(6), 371–384.
- 25.
Swenseth, S.R. and Olson, D.L. (2014). Simulation model of professional service personnel inventory. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 19(4), 451–467.
- 26.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M. and Kalawsky, R. (2013). A systems approach for modelling supply chain risk. Supply Chain Management 18(5), 523–538.
- 27.
Wangphanich, P., Kara, S. and Kayis, B. (2010). Analysis of the bullwhip effect in multi-product, multi-stage supply chain systems – a simulation approach. International Journal of Production Research 48(15), 4501–4517.
- 28.
Wu, D. and Olson, D.L. (2011). Forward. Annals of Operations Research 185(1), 1–3; Wu, D.D., Olson, D.L. and Birge, J. (2011) Guest editorial. Computers and Operations Research 39(4), 751–752; Wu, D., Olson, D.L. and Birge, J. Introduction to special issue on enterprise risk management in operations. International Journal of Production Economics 134(1); Wu, D., Fang, S.-C., Olson, D.L. and Birge, J.R. (2012) Introduction to the special issue on optimizing risk management in services. Optimization 61(10–12), 1175–1177; Wu, D.D. and Olson, D.L. (2013) Computational simulation and risk analysis: An introduction of state of the art research.Mathematical & Computer Modelling 58, 1581–1587; Wu, D.D., Chen, S.-H. and Olson, D.L. (2014) Business intelligence in risk management: Some recent progresses. Information Sciences 256(20), 1–7.
- 29.
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015). Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation. International Journal of Production Research 53(18), 5640–5656.
- 30.
Ting, S.L., Tse, Y.K., Ho, G.T.S., Chung, S.H. and Pang, G. (2014). Mining logistics data to assure the quality in a sustainable food supply chain: A case in the red wine industry. International Journal of Production Economics 152, 200–209.
- 31.
Cucchiella, F. and Gastaldi, M. (2006). Risk management in supply chain: A real option approach, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17:6, 700–720.
- 32.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown, MIT Sloan Management Review 46:1, 53–61.
- 33.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J. and Chidambaram, V. (2006). A model for inbound supply risk analysis. Computers in Industry 57, 350–365. et al. (2006), op cit.
- 34.
Cucchiella and Gastaldi (2006), op cit.
- 35.
Blackhurst, J.V., Scheibe, K.P. and Johnson, D.J. (2008). Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for the automotive industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:2, 143–165.
- 36.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management, Journal of Business Logistics 29:1, 133–155.
- 37.
Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2008). An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk, Journal of Business Logistics 29:1, 307–325.
- 38.
Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2014). Effect of firm characteristics, supplier relationships and techniques used on supply chain risk management (SCRM): An empirical investigation on French industrial firms. International Journal of Production Research 52(11), 3381–3403.
- 39.
Cucchiella and Gastaldi (2006), op cit.
- 40.
Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.-M. and Tuominen, M. (2004). Risk management processes in supplier networks, International Journal of Production Economics 90:1, 47–58; Khan and Burnes (2007), op cit.; Autry, C.W. and Bobbitt, L.M. (2008). Supply chain security orientation: Conceptual development and a proposed framework, International Journal of Logistics Management 19:1, 42–64; Manuj and Mentzer (2008), op cit.
- 41.
Kleindorfer and Saad (2005), op cit.
- 42.
Chopra and Sodhi (2004), op cit.
- 43.
Kahn, O. and Burnes, B. (2007). Risk and supply chain management: Creating a research agenda. International Journal of Logistics Management 18(2): 197–216.
- 44.
Wagner and Bodhi (2008), op cit.
- 45.
Manuj and Mentzer (2008), op cit.
- 46.
Oke, A., Gopalakrishnan, M. 2009. Managing Disruptions in Supply Chains: A Case Study of a Retail Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Economics 118(1); 168–174.
- 47.
Chopra and Sodhi (2004), op cit.
- 48.
Talluri, S., Kull, T.J., Yildiz, H. and Yoon, J. (2013) Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics 34(4), 253–269.
- 49.
Tang, C.S. (2006). Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 9:1, 33–45.
- 50.
Cucchiella and Gastaldi (2006), op cit.
- 51.
Ritchie and Brindley (2007a), op cit.