How Much Flexibility Does It Take to Mitigate Supply Chain Risks?
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).
KeywordsSupply Chain Flexibility Strategy Supply Chain Partner Supply Risk Supply Chain Risk
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- AMR (2006) AMR Research Report on Managing Supply Chain Risk. AMR Research, Inc.Google Scholar
- Billington C (2002) HP Cuts Risk with Portfolio Approach. Purchasing Magazine Online, February 21.Google Scholar
- Brown D (2004) How U.S. Got Down to Two Makers of Flu Vaccine. Washington Post, October 16.Google Scholar
- Boyabatli O, Tokay B (2004) Operational Hedging: A Review with Discussion. INSEAD working paper.Google Scholar
- Chandler C, Fung A (2006) Not Exactly Counterfeit. Fortune, May 1, pp. 108-116.Google Scholar
- Chopra S, Sodhi M (2004) Avoiding Supply Chain Breakdown. Sloan Management Review, vol. 46, pp. 53-62.Google Scholar
- Christopher M, Lee H (2004) Mitigating Supply Chain Risk Through Improved Confidence. Cranfield School of Management working paper.Google Scholar
- Feitzinger E, Lee H (1997) Mass Customization at Hewlett Packard: The Power of Postponement. Harvard Business Review, vol. 75, pp. 116-121.Google Scholar
- Ferdows, K, Lewis M, Machuca J (2004) Rapid Fire Fulfillment. Harvard Business Review, vol. 82, pp. 104-117.Google Scholar
- Gumbel P (2006) Trying to Untangle Wires. Time Europe Magazine, October, (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,1543879,00.html).
- Hammond J, Raman A (1995) Sport Obermeyer, Ltd. Harvard Business School Case # 5-696-012.Google Scholar
- Kopczak L, Lee H (1993) Hewlett-Packard: DeskJet Printer Supply Chain. Stanford Graduate School of Business Case.Google Scholar
- 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
- Krazit T (2004) Trouble in East Fishkill? IBM chip group struggles. InfoWorld.com, April 21.Google Scholar
- Lee H (2004) The Triple-A Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, vol. 19, pp. 102-112.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lee H, Wolfe M (2003) Supply Chain Security Without Tears. Supply Chain Management Review, January/February issue, pp.12-20.Google Scholar
- Lee H, Peleg B, Whang S (2005) Toyota: Demand Chain Management. Stanford Business School Case #GS42.Google Scholar
- 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
- Reuters (2006) Ford Shuts Down Truck Plants for Part Problem. April 27. Reuters.com.Google Scholar
- 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
- Sheffi Y (2005) Building a Resilient Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, vol. 10, pp. 3-5.Google Scholar
- St. George A (1998) Li and Fung: Beyond ‘Filling in the Mosaic’. Harvard Business School Case # 9-398-092.Google Scholar
- Stalk G, Hout T (1990) Competing Against Time. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 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
- Tang CS, Tomlin B (2007) The Power of Flexibility for Mitigating Supply Chain Risks. Anderson School (UCLA) working paper.Google Scholar
- van Mieghem J, Dada M (1999) Price Versus Production Postponement: Capacity and Competition. Management Science, vol. 45, pp. 1631-1649.Google Scholar
- 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