Advertisement

How Much Flexibility Does It Take to Mitigate Supply Chain Risks?

  • Christopher Tang
  • Brian Tomlin
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 124)

In light of the number of severe, and well publicized, supply disruptions over the past decade, it is not surprising that firms are instituting risk assessment programs to gauge their vulnerability. Using both formal quantitative methods and informal qualitative ones, risk assessment programs attempt to systematically uncover and estimate supply chain risks. What is surprising, perhaps, is that there has not been a concomitant investment in risk reduction programs. While the exact reasons for this are not known, a number of researchers, e.g., Rice and Caniato (2004), Zsidisin et al. (2001) and Zsidisin et al. (2004), have offered the following as potential explanations for why risk reduction efforts are less widespread: (1) Some firms are not familiar with the different approaches for managing supply chain risks; (2) Lacking credible estimates for the probability of a major disruption, many firms cannot perform the formal cost/benefit or return on investment (ROI) analyses to justify risk reduction investments.

The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. In the next section, we discuss some key supply chain risks and the role that flexibility can play in mitigating the risks. In Sect. 10.3, we introduce a flexibility measure and review some stylized models intended to illustrate the power of flexibility. Based on our models, we show that only a small amount of flexibility is required to mitigate risk. Section 10.4 concludes this chapter. We note that this chapter is based on research presented in Tang and Tomlin (2007).

Keywords

Supply Chain Flexibility Strategy Supply Chain Partner Supply Risk Supply Chain Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMR (2006) AMR Research Report on Managing Supply Chain Risk. AMR Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Billington C (2002) HP Cuts Risk with Portfolio Approach. Purchasing Magazine Online, February 21.Google Scholar
  3. Brown D (2004) How U.S. Got Down to Two Makers of Flu Vaccine. Washington Post, October 16.Google Scholar
  4. Boyabatli O, Tokay B (2004) Operational Hedging: A Review with Discussion. INSEAD working paper.Google Scholar
  5. Chandler C, Fung A (2006) Not Exactly Counterfeit. Fortune, May 1, pp. 108-116.Google Scholar
  6. Chopra S, Sodhi M (2004) Avoiding Supply Chain Breakdown. Sloan Management Review, vol. 46, pp. 53-62.Google Scholar
  7. Christopher M, Lee H (2004) Mitigating Supply Chain Risk Through Improved Confidence. Cranfield School of Management working paper.Google Scholar
  8. Feitzinger E, Lee H (1997) Mass Customization at Hewlett Packard: The Power of Postponement. Harvard Business Review, vol. 75, pp. 116-121.Google Scholar
  9. Ferdows, K, Lewis M, Machuca J (2004) Rapid Fire Fulfillment. Harvard Business Review, vol. 82, pp. 104-117.Google Scholar
  10. Gumbel P (2006) Trying to Untangle Wires. Time Europe Magazine, October, (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,1543879,00.html).
  11. Hammond J, Raman A (1995) Sport Obermeyer, Ltd. Harvard Business School Case # 5-696-012.Google Scholar
  12. Hendricks K, Singhal V (2005) Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance. Management Science, vol. 51, pp. 695-711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huchzermeier A, Cohen M (1996) Valuing Operational Flexibility Under Exchange Rate Risk. Operations Research, vol. 44, pp. 100-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan W, Graves SC (1995) Principles on the Benefits of Manufacturing Process Flexibility. Management Science, vol. 41, pp. 577-594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopczak L, Lee H (1993) Hewlett-Packard: DeskJet Printer Supply Chain. Stanford Graduate School of Business Case.Google Scholar
  16. Kouvelis P, Dong L, Su P (2006) Operational Hedging Strategies and Competitive Exposure to Exchange Rates. Olin School of Business, (Washington University) working paper.Google Scholar
  17. Krazit T (2004) Trouble in East Fishkill? IBM chip group struggles. InfoWorld.com, April 21.Google Scholar
  18. Lee H (2004) The Triple-A Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, vol. 19, pp. 102-112.Google Scholar
  19. Lee H, Tang CS (1997) Modeling the Costs and Benefits of Delayed Product Differentiation. Management Science, vol. 43, pp. 40-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee H, Whang S (1998) Value of Postponement. In Produce Variety Management: Research Advances, eds. T.H. Ho and C.S. Tang, Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Lee H, Wolfe M (2003) Supply Chain Security Without Tears. Supply Chain Management Review, January/February issue, pp.12-20.Google Scholar
  22. Lee H, Peleg B, Whang S (2005) Toyota: Demand Chain Management. Stanford Business School Case #GS42.Google Scholar
  23. Martha J, Subbakrishna S (2002) Targeting a Just-in-Case Supply Chain for the Inevitable Next Disaster. Supply Chain Management Review, September issue.Google Scholar
  24. Reuters (2006) Ford Shuts Down Truck Plants for Part Problem. April 27. Reuters.com.Google Scholar
  25. Rice B, Caniato F (2004) Supply Chain Response to Terrorism: Creating Resilient and Secure Supply Chains. Supply Chain Response to Terrorism Project Interim Report, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, MIT, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  26. Sheffi Y (2001) Supply Chain Management under the Threat of International Terrorism. International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 12, pp. 1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sheffi Y (2005) Building a Resilient Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, vol. 10, pp. 3-5.Google Scholar
  28. So K, Tang CS, Zavala R (2003) Model for Improving Team Productivity at the Federal Reserve Bank. Interfaces, vol. 33, pp. 25-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. St. George A (1998) Li and Fung: Beyond ‘Filling in the Mosaic’. Harvard Business School Case # 9-398-092.Google Scholar
  30. Stalk G, Hout T (1990) Competing Against Time. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Tang CS (1999) Supplier Relationship Map. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 39-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang CS (2006a) Robust Strategies for Mitigating Supply Chain Disruptions. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 9, pp. 33-45, 2006a.Google Scholar
  33. Tang CS (2006b) Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 103, pp. 451-488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tang CS, Tomlin B (2007) The Power of Flexibility for Mitigating Supply Chain Risks. Anderson School (UCLA) working paper.Google Scholar
  35. Tsay AA, Lovejoy WS (1999) Quantity Flexible Contracts and Supply Chain Performance. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, vol. 1, pp.89-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Mieghem J, Dada M (1999) Price Versus Production Postponement: Capacity and Competition. Management Science, vol. 45, pp. 1631-1649.Google Scholar
  37. Zsidisin G, Panelli A, Upton R (2001) Purchasing Organization Involvement in Risk Assessments, Contingency Plans, and Risk Management: An Exploratory Study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, pp. 187-197.Google Scholar
  38. Zsidisin G, Ellram L, Carter J, Cavinato J (2004) An Analysis of Supply Risk Assessment Techniques. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, vol. 34, pp. 397-413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Tang
    • 1
  • Brian Tomlin
  1. 1.UCLA Anderson SchoolUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations