Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) supply chains: a new perspective in managing disruption risks and resilience

Abstract

This study suggests a new approach to supply chain (SC) disruption risk management where SC behaviour is less dependent on the certainty of our knowledge about the environment and its changes. The unpredictability of the occurrence of disruption and its magnitude suggests that designing SCs with a low need for 'certainty' may be as important, if not more so, than predetermined disruption control strategies. In this setting, this study calls for the development of a new perspective in SC disruption management, i.e. low-certainty-need (LCN) SCs. A number of principles and concepts is derived in recent, relevant literature to structure the characteristics of the LCN framework and its management. Structural variety, process flexibility, and parametrical redundancy are identified as key LCN SC characteristics that ensure efficient disruption resistance as well as recovery resource allocation. Two efficiency capabilities of the LCN SC are shown, i.e. low need for uncertainty consideration in planning decisions and low need for recovery coordination efforts based on a combination of lean and resilient elements. The results allow the identification of an LCN SC framework, concepts and technologies for its implementation as well as missing themes and new research questions which contribute to a better understanding of SC disruption risks. Special focus is directed on the digital technology usage in the LCN framework implementation.

Operational resilience, disruption, and efficiency: Conceptual and empirical analyses

“…Second, despite the interrelations between operational resilience, disruption, and efficiency Wong et al, 2019), empirical knowledge of their interplay remains underdeveloped. Whereas some authors express doubt about the efficiency value of resilience (e.g., van der Vegt et al, 2015), Ivanov and Dolgui (2019) propose the idea of low-certainty-need to suggest that resilience and efficiency can coexist when resilience-building behavior is less dependent on certainty of knowledge about the occurrence and impacts of disruptions. Subsequently, Wong et al (2019) investigate the complexities associated with these variables by linking resilience to financial performance.…”

A Neutrosophic AHP and TOPSIS Framework for Supply Chain Risk Assessment in Automotive Industry of Pakistan

“…Practices for managing SCRs can be categorized as SC resilience, SC agility, and SC robustness [20][21][22][23]. The previous literature suggests that these three practices are followed when SCR mitigation strategies are developed [3,20,[24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

“…Although the previous literature suggests the importance of SC resilience, SC agility, and SC robustness for managing SCRs [8,28,36], it has surprisingly treated them separately and lacks in clarifying their context to different situations and applicability. The previous literature is insufficient in explaining which practice to use in handling which type of risk.…”

Prioritizing dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystem: a proposed framework

“…Researchers (Allesina, Azzi, Battini, & Regattieri, 2010;Ivanov & Dolgui, 2018) and policy advisers argue that networks of interconnected firms play a pivotal role in equipping firms with a competitive advantage. Therefore, entrepreneurs are looking toward their ecosystem in order to achieve success for themselves.…”

“…Hence, entrepreneurial decisions are inevitably dependent on how individuals judge their entrepreneurial ecosystem. Although previous studies have shown a positive effect on fundamental decisions in the context of founding a new venture (e.g., Ivanov & Dolgui, 2018;Suresh & Ramraj, 2012), research exists on the prioritization of individual components of EES. It is essential to analyze the relative contribution of these factors in order to devise the optimal entrepreneurial promotion policy.…”