Disruption Tails and Revival Policies in the Supply Chain
We study capacity disruption and recovery policy impacts on supply chain (SC) performance. Discrete event simulation methodology is used for analysis with real company data and real disruptions. Two novel findings are shown. First, disruption-driven changes in SC behaviour may result in backlog and delayed orders, the accumulation of which in the post-disruption period we call ‘disruption tails’. A transition of these residues into the post-disruption period causes the post-disruption SC instability, resulting in further delivery delays and non-recovery of SC performance. Second, a smooth transition from the contingency policy through a special ‘revival policy’ to the normal operation mode allows the negative effects of the disruption tails to be partially mitigated. These results suggest three managerial insights. First, contingency policies need to be applied during the disruption period to avoid disruption tails. Second, recovery policies need to be extended towards an integrated consideration of both disruption and the post-disruption periods. Third, revival policies need to be developed for the transition from the contingency to the disruption-free operation mode. A revival policy intends to mitigate the negative impact of the disruption tails and stabilize the SC control policies and performance. The experimental results suggest the revival policy should be included in the SC resilience framework if the performance cannot be recovered fully after the capacity recovery.
KeywordsSimulation Supply chain Ordering Production Resilience Disruption tails Revival policy Recovery Performance
- Atan, Z., & Snyder, L. V. (2012). Inventory strategies to manage supply disruptions. In Supply disruptions: Theory and practice of managing risk (pp. 115–139). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Costantino, A., Dotoli, M., Falagario, M., Fanti, M. P., & Mangini, A. M. (2012). A model for supply management of agile manufacturing supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics 135, 451–457.Google Scholar
- Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, A., Blome, C., & Luo, Z. (2017). Antecedents of resilient supply chains: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 99, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Rozhkov, M. (2019). Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip effect? An integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, in press.Google Scholar
- He, J., Alavifard F., Ivanov D., Jahani H. (2018). A real-option approach to mitigate disruption risk in the supply Chain. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, published online.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D. (2018b). Structural dynamics and resilience in supply chain risk management. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Dolgui A., Sokolov B., & Ivanova M. (2017a). Literature review on disruption recovery in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55(20), 6158–6174.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Tsipoulanidis, A., & Schönberger, J. (2017c). Global supply chain and operations management. Springer Nature.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., & Rozhkov M. (2017). Coordination of production and ordering policies under capacity disruption and product write-off risk: An analytical study with real-data based simulations of a fast moving consumer goods company. Annals of Operations Research, published online.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., & Pavlov, A. (2013). Dual problem formulation and its application to optimal re-design of an integrated production-distribution network with structure dynamics and ripple effect considerations. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5386–5403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Sokolov B., & Kaeschel J. (2010) A multi-structural framework for adaptive supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(2), 409–420.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3), 829–846.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2018) Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) Supply Chains: A new perspective in managing disruption risks and resilience. International Journal of Production Research, in press.Google Scholar
- Ivanov, D., Tsipoulanidis, A., & Schönberger, J. (2019). Global supply chain and operations management. 2nd Ed., Springer Nature.Google Scholar
- Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Pavlov, D., Slinko, A. (2019). Optimization of network redundancy and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource management under conditions of structural dynamics. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03182-6.
- Sawik, T. (2018) Two-period vs. multi-period model for supply chain disruption management. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1504246.
- Sheffi, Y., Rice J. B. (2005). A Supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
- Trucco, P., Petrenj, B., & Birkie, S. E. (2017). Assessing supply chain resilience upon critical infrastructure disruptions: A multilevel simulation modelling approach. In Y. Khojasteh (Ed.), Supply chain risk management (pp. 311–334). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar