(Le)agility in humanitarian aid (NGO) supply chains

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of agility in the context of supply chains of humanitarian aid (HA) organizations, particularly non‐government organizations (NGOs). This responds to the increasing pressure on NGOs to use their resources more strategically if they are to gain donor trust and long‐term commitment.Design/methodology/approachA literature‐based approach that extends the commercial supply chain concept of agility to NGOs is combined with the first exploratory semi‐structured interviews of these concepts with five NGO supply chain directors.FindingsThe commercial concept of agility when responding to disaster relief holds strong potential for increasing efficiency and effectiveness, but this application is restrained by the absence of supporting information technology (IT) and the relegation of supply chain management (SCM) to the “back office” by NGOs. This has potential implications for NGOs and other HA agencies.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper represents an exploratory study, and an extended pool of interviewees would reinforce the qualitative findings. Planned future research will address this issue.Practical implicationsPractical guidance on how NGOs can proactively manage their organization's ability to respond with agility in a highly pressured environment is provided.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to offer practical guidance to managers of NGOs on strategies available to improve their organization's flexibility and agility, based on theoretical concepts and initial exploratory data. In addition, evidence of how commercial tools apply in a different arena may prompt commercial managers to be more innovative in utilizing and customizing supply chain principles to their particular context of operation.

Defining and measuring the network flexibility of humanitarian supply chains: insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake

“…In their research, Santarelli et al (2015) and Scholten et al (2010) explain that HOs have high levels of flexibility in their SCs while we could not confirm this in Nepal case. The divergence can be explained by the differences between either the set of flexibility measurement criteria, corresponding weights for them, or the specific topography of Nepal.…”

“…Flexibility has therefore been recognized as one of the success factors of HSCs (Manoj et al 2015;Bozorgi-Amiri and Asvadi 2015;Abounacer et al 2014;Najafi et al 2013;Yushimito et al 2012;Afshar and Haghani 2012;Shen et al 2009;Abidi et al 2013). Flexibility impacts organizational structures, information systems, and logistics processes (Scholten et al 2010). However, only few researchers propose definitions for 'flexibility in HSCs' (Scholten et al 2010;Santarelli et al 2013Santarelli et al , 2015.…”

“…However, only few researchers propose definitions for 'flexibility in HSCs' (Scholten et al 2010;Santarelli et al 2013Santarelli et al , 2015. Scholten et al (2010) define flexibility in HSC through its dimensions, such as resources and distribution while Santarelli et al (2013Santarelli et al ( , 2015, define it as an ability to adapt to changing external conditions.…”

“…Facilitated by the development of information technologies, humanitarian supply chains (HSCs) have become more transparent (Comes and Van de Walle 2016). However, the improved/improving information about HSC have not yet been translated into better response (Prasad et al 2016), and some authors have argued that this is owing to a lack of flexibility (Scholten et al 2010).…”

Humanitarian Relief Supply Chain Performance Evaluation: A Literature Review

“…2; billion, the resultant logistic spending is around $15 billion (Christopher & Tatham, 2011).Thus, proper investment in logistics in disaster relief provides the main opportunity to develop and implement effective and efficient use of resources in humanitarian operations (Cozzolino et al, 2012). In addition, a more strategic use of resources allows humanitarian organizations to raise donor trust and long-term commitment by increasingly skeptical benefactors (Scholten et al, 2010).…”