Advertisement

Assessing the Vulnerability of Supply Chains: Advances from Engineering Systems

  • Sigurd S. Pettersen
  • Bjørn Egil Asbjørnslett
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Supply Chain Management book series (SSSCM, volume 7)

Abstract

Vulnerability assessments focus on extended sets of hazards and threats, and seek to ensure that adequate resources exist to restore system functionality to a stable level within a reasonable amount of time. Multiple frameworks for vulnerability assessments in supply chains report on tools that can support this analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to inform supply chain researchers and practitioners of emerging trends and advances from engineering design that can benefit supply chain risk management, and set these in the context of a previously published methodology (Asbjørnslett 2009) for vulnerability assessment in the supply chain.

Specific advances that will be addressed include:

  • Epoch-era analysis for structuring event taxonomies and scenarios.

  • Failure mode thinking for low-frequency, high-impact (LFHI) events.

  • Design structure matrices and axiomatic design principles for function–form mapping in the supply chain as a tool for ensuring adequate levels of redundancy, flexibility, and identification of latent functionality.

References

  1. Adhitya, A., Srinivasan, R., & Karimi, I. A. (2009). Supply chain risk identification using a HAZOP-based approach. AIChE Journal, 55(6), 1447–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asbjørnslett, B. E. (2009). Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains. In G. A. Zsidisin & B. Ritchie (Eds.), Supply chain risk—A handbook of assessment, management, and performance (pp. 15–33). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  3. Asbjørnslett, B. E., & Rausand, M. (1999). Assess the vulnerability of your production system. Production Planning & Control, 10(3), 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berle, Ø., Rice, J. B., Jr., & Asbjørnslett, B. E. (2011a). Failure modes in the maritime transportation system: a functional approach to throughput vulnerability. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(6), 605–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berle, Ø., Asbjørnslett, B. E., & Rice, J. B., Jr. (2011b). Formal vulnerability assessment of a maritime transportation system. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 96(6), 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: Technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies, 31(4), 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crilly, N. (2015). The proliferation of functions: Multiple systems playing multiple roles in multiple supersystems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 29, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Weck, O. L., Roos, D., & Magee, C. L. (2011). Engineering systems: Meeting human needs in a complex technological world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. (2012). Design structure matrix: Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Erden, M. S., Komoto, H., van Beek, T. J., D’Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: Approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chain risk—Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Maritime Organization (2002). Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment for use in the IMO rule-making process. London, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, S., & Ferris, T. L. J. (2013). Resilience principles for engineered systems. Systems Engineering, 16(2), 152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, J. B. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management a strategy for supply. Harvard Business Review, 109–117.Google Scholar
  17. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  18. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design (2nd ed.). London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peck, H. (2005). Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: An integrated framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(3/4), 210–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pettersen, S. S., Erikstad, S. O., & Asbjørnslett, B. E. (2018). Exploiting latent functional capabilities for resilience in design of engineering systems. Research in Engineering Design, 29(4), 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 137–145.Google Scholar
  22. Rausand, M. (2011). Risk assessment: Theory, methods, and applications (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rausand, M., & Høyland, A. (2004). System reliability theory: Models, statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Rice, J. B., Jr., & Caniato, F. (2003). Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply Chain Management Review, 7(5), 22–30.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, A. M., Hastings, D. E., Warmkessel, J. M., & Diller, N. P. (2004). Multi-attribute tradespace exploration as front end for effective space system design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 41(1), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross, A. M., & Rhodes, D. H. (2008). Using natural value-centric time scales for conceptualizing system timelines through epoch-era analysis. In: INCOSE International Symposium (Vol. 18, pp. 1186–1201). Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Steward, D. V. (1981). The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-28(3), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Supply Chain Council. (2012). Supply chain operations reference model (11th ed.).Google Scholar
  30. Svensson, G. (2000). A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(9), 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tang, O., & Musa, S. N. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uday, P., & Marais, K. (2015). Designing resilient systems-of-systems: A survey of metrics, methods, and challenges. Systems Engineering, 18(5), 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sigurd S. Pettersen
    • 1
  • Bjørn Egil Asbjørnslett
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations