Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding risk management for intentional supply chain disruptions: risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk recovery

  • Applications of OR in Disaster Relief Operations
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Strategies to mitigate supply chain risk tend to treat disruptive events as homogenous, despite having different causes and requiring different risk management strategies. We develop a framework to understand effective risk management strategies by considering whether a disruption was caused by an intentional or inadvertent act and whether the source of the disruption was endogenous or exogenous to the supply chain. Based on exploring evidence from risk management strategies for specific disruptions, we find that risk detection is important for both intentional and inadvertent disruptions, while effective risk management practices differ in terms of risk mitigation (relational versus process based approaches) and risk recovery (restructuring versus resilience). The resultant theory-based framework provides a new theoretical perspective on supply chain disruptions and posits that understanding intent and the source of the disruption is critical for appropriate risk management strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 2014 Annual Report (2014). Analog Devices. Accessed Feb 9, 2016.

  • Azad, N., Saharidis, G. K., Davoudpour, H., Malekly, H., & Yektamaram, S. A. (2013). Strategies for protecting supply chain networks against facility and transportation disruptions: an improved Benders decomposition approach. Annals of Operations Research, 210(1), 125–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babich, V., & Tang, C. S. (2012). Managing opportunistic supplier product adulteration: Deferred payments, inspection, and combined mechanisms. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 14(2), 301–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartz, D. (2013). U.S. agency: Apple infringes Samsung patent on older iPhones, iPads.Reuters.

  • Bates, H., Holweg, M., Lewis, M., & Oliver, N. (2007). Motor vehicle recalls: Trends, patterns and emerging issues. Omega, 35(2), 202–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C. W., Elkins, D., & Handfield, R. B. (2005). An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International journal of production research, 43(19), 4067–4081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses to supplychain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of operations Management, 27(2), 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Continuity Institute (2012). Supply Chain Resilience 2012. Accessed Jan 6, 2016. http://www.thebci.org/index.php/supply-chain-resilience-survey-2012.

  • Carnovale, S., & Yeniyurt, S. (2015). The role of ego network structure in facilitating ego network innovations. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 22–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cegielski, C. G., Jones-Farmer, L. A., Wu, Y., & Hazen, B. T. (2012). Adoption of cloud computing technologies in supply chains: An organizational information processing theory approach. International Journal of Logistics Management, 23(2), 184–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, A. (2011). Mattel must pay MGA $310 million in Bratz case. Los Angeles Times.

  • Choi, T. Y., Budny, J., & Wank, N. (2004). Intellectual property management: A knowledge supply chain perspective. Business Horizons, 47(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The international journal of logistics management, 15(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business ethics: A European review, 16, 19–33.

  • Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131–156. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Matta, R. (2016). Contingency planning during the formation of a supply chain. Annals of Operations Research, 1–31. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-2085-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., Paterson, M., Plows, A., & Wall, D. (2003). Explaining the fuel protests. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durach, C. F., Weiland, A., & Machuca, J. A. D. (2015). Antecedents and dimensions of supply chain robustness: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic management journal, 21(3), 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S. C., Shockley, J., & Henry, R. M. (2011). Making sense of supply disruption risk research: A conceptual framework grounded in enactment theory. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(2), 65–96. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03217.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, P. (2004). Supply chain risk management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(2), 183–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, M. D., Carnovale, S., & Yeniyurt, S. (2015). An analytical framework for supply network risk propagation: A bayesian network approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 242(2), 618–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunipero, L. C., & Aly Eltantawy, R. (2004). Securing the upstream supply chain: A risk management approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(9), 698–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, J., Purvis, L., & Naim, M. M. (2010). Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazen, B. T., & Sankar, C. (2015). Cross-border process innovations: Improving the fit between information processing needs and capabilities. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 12(03), 1550013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2003). The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth. Journal of operations Management, 21(5), 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2004). Information processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply chain performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 241–253. doi:10.2307/20159575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, J. K., & Peterson, R. B. (1986). Effects of task difficulty and interunit interdependence on information processing systems. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jüttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. (2003). Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for future research. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 6(4), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, B. (2014). Aston Martin recalls 17,590 cars due to counterfeit material. Reuters: Reuters Business News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouvelis, P., & Li, J. (2008). Flexible backup supply and the management of lead-time uncertainty. Production and Operations Management, 17(2), 184–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., & Heal, G. (2003). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2–3), 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L., & Whang, S. (2005). Higher supply chain security with lower cost: Lessons from total quality management. International Journal of Production Economics, 96(3), 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M., Ran, L., & Shen, Z.-J. M. (2015). Reliable facility location design under uncertain correlated disruptions. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 17(4), 445–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, C. A., Santos, J. R., & Barker, K. (2012). Measuring changes in international production from a disruption: Case study of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 293–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 38(3), 192–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maureen, M. (2014).Taco bell ridicules McDonald’s egg McMuffin in new spot. Advertising Age.

  • Nam, S., Nam, C., & Kim, S. (2015). The impact of patent litigation on shareholder value in the smartphone industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 182–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, R., & Talluri, S. (2009). Perspectives on risk management in supply chains. Journal of operations Management, 27(2), 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrman, A., & Jansson, U. (2004). Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34, 434–456.

  • Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development of conceptual framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ping, R. A. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 320–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. (1978). An information-task approach to organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 493–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, S., Zakaria, R., & Altay, N. (2016). Big data in humanitarian supply chain networks: A resource dependence perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 1–31. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2280-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj Sinha, P., Whitman, L. E., & Malzahn, D. (2004). Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, 154–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, S., & Goldsby, T. J. (2009). Supply chain risks: A review and typology. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1), 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salop, S. C., & Scheffman, D. T. (1983). Raising rivals’ costs. The American Economic Review, 73(2), 267–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W., & Raman, A. (2012). When supply-chain disruptions matter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. (2001). Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press.

  • Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. B, Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shtub, A., Bard, J. F., & Globerson, S. (1994). Project management: Engineering, technology, and implementation. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

  • Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. S., Gannon, M. J., & Chen, M. (1991). Organizational information processing, competitive responses, and performance in the US domestic airline industry. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W. B., & Gilly, M. C. (1991). Information processing and problem solving: The migration of problems through formal positions and networks of ties. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 918–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A. K. (2010). Piracy in the Horn of Africa and its effects on the global supply chain. Journal of Transportation Security, 3(4), 231–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C. S. (2006). Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 9(1), 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Science, 52(5), 639–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuggle, F. D., & Gerwin, D. (1980). An information processing model of organizational perception, strategy and choice. Management Science, 26(6), 575–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Véronneau, S., & Roy, J. (2014). Security at the source: Securing today’s critical supply chain networks. Journal of Transportation Security, 7(4), 359–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Wu, Y., Liang, L., & Huang, Z. (2014). Service outsourcing and disaster response methods in a relief supply chain. Annals of Operations Research, 240, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism. New York City: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, C. (2008). Mattels Recalls (2007): Communication implications for quality control, outsourcing and consumer relations. Arthur. W. Page Society. 2008 Case Study Competition Journal.

  • Wu, Y., Cegielski, C. G., Hazen, B. T., & Hall, D. J. (2013). Cloud computing in support of supply chain information system infrastructure: Understanding when to go to the cloud. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(3), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., Zhuang, J., & Liu, Z. (2016). Modeling and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption in a defender-attacker game. Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolkos, R. (2003). Many companies still ignoring supply-chain risks. Business Insurance, 37(43), 21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Scott DuHadway & Steven Carnovale

  2. Department of Operational Sciences, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, OH, USA

    Benjamin Hazen

Authors
  1. Scott DuHadway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Carnovale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Hazen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Hazen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S. & Hazen, B. Understanding risk management for intentional supply chain disruptions: risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk recovery. Ann Oper Res 283, 179–198 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2452-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2452-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation