The Future of Resilient Supply Chains

Abstract

While supply chain resilience has been touched upon frequently, research remains (with the exception of often repeated anecdotal examples) relatively disparate on what disruptions actually are. This research aims to advance theoretical and managerial understandings around the management of supply chain disruptions. A two-stage researchprocess is used which focuses first on polling academic experts. This stage is followed by the extraction of insights from practitioners in the automotive, electronics and food industries. Our findings coalesce around: (1) the types of disruptions that respondents are most concerned about; (2) the associated strategies suggested to cope with disruptions; and, (3) how resilience can be measured. It is apparent that there are some areas where academics and practitioners agree and others where they agree to a lesser extent. Both sets of actors tend to agree on how resilience can be quantified, with recovery time the preferred indicator. However, there is a discrepancy around how resilience is achieved within the supply chain. Academics emphasise the importance of redundancy while practitioners refer more to flexibility. Also, they disagree around what constitutes 'key 2 disruptions': academics suggested high-profile events while practitioners are more concerned with day-to-day problems.

Systematic review: resilience enablers to combat counterfeit medicines

“…The findings of this research contribute to the ongoing investigations concerning SCR and counterfeit literature by shedding light on how resilience enablers can strengthen anti-measures to counterfeiting in the medicine supply chain. Although resilience reports have addressed counterfeiting as a vulnerability (Donadoni et al , 2016), little research has been conducted on how to address counterfeiting threats by increasing resilience.…”

Supply chain resilience during pandemic disruption: evidence from healthcare

“…Operational risks (normally small to medium impact) include common uncertainties such as demand uncertainty, delivery lead times and availability of raw materials (Tang, 2006; Cardoso et al , 2015). Disruption risks include natural disasters, epidemics, accidents such as fires and intentional attacks such as terrorism (Cardoso et al , 2015; Sreedevi and Saranga, 2017; Donadoni et al , 2019). Disruption risks (high impact) include major crises such as epidemics/pandemics that are not as likely to occur as operational risks but would have a much larger impact on the SC members (Tang, 2006; Cardoso et al , 2015).…”

“…There are many papers published looking at ways to measure SCRES both on an enterprise-level (Sheffi and Rice, 2005; Datta et al , 2007; Pettit et al , 2013; Wieland and Wallenburg, 2013) and a network level (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017), but there is no cohesive agreed upon method (Elleuch et al , 2016; Donadoni et al , 2019). Additionally, authors have found empirical-based studies are lacking on this subject (Bhamra et al , 2011; Elleuch et al , 2016; Ali et al , 2017; Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017).…”

Translating High Hopes Into Tangible Benefits: How Incumbents in Supply Chain and Logistics Approach Blockchain

“…Effectively sharing information, e. g., about demand changes and inventory levels of the different supply chain tiers, allows for improving the competitiveness of the entire supply chain [4]. Also, since supply chains are multi-tiered and interconnected, the effects of disruptions cascade through the entire supply network, calling for quick and well-informed reactions [5]. For example, the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011, ultimately resulting in the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, severely disrupted supply chains in different industries [6].…”