Skip to main content

Risk-Driven Supply Chain Design: Options and Trade-Offs in Complex Environments

  • 695 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the relevance of different supply chain paradigms and depicts their differences and limitations in complex environments. Following a critical reflection on the validity of traditional cost, efficiency or agile dominant supply chain structures, the authors propose a framework that allows decision-makers to assess strategic supply chain design options and their trade-offs in complex environments. The framework constructs from ten dimensions each of which contains two opposed design options. The framework allows decision-makers to assess supply chain design options by defining importance of opposed options in each dimension. The authors exemplify the use of the framework via differentiating two extreme cases and present two mini cases for one commodity supply chain. In this regard, this chapter reflects on possible supply chain design responses to current and future complexity and provides decision-makers with a framework for a strategic assessment of their supply chain design options, considering their fragility in complex environments.

Keywords

  • Risk management
  • Systemic view
  • Data analytics

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95764-3_17
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-95764-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barbieri, P. (2016). The losers of deglobalization. Why states should fear the closing of an open world. November 13, 2016, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-13/losers-deglobalization

  • Bemdell, J. (2018). Deep adaptation: A map for navigating climate tragedy. IFLAS Occasional Paper 2July 27th 2018. https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/deepadaptation.pdf

  • Bloom, J. (2020). Will coronavirus reverse globalisation? 2 April 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978

  • Bostrom, N. (2019). The vulnerable world hypothesis. Global Policy, 10(4), 455–476.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. L., & Mendelson, H. (2012). Information transmission and the bullwhip effect: an empirical investigation. Management Science, 58(5), 860–875.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2016). Supply chain readiness, response and recovery for resilience. Supply Chain Management an International Journal, 21(6), 709–731.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Management., 15, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., Peck, H., Rutherford, C. & Jüttner, U. (2003). Supply chain resilience. Cranfield Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez, R., Cannella, S., & Framinan, J. M. (2015). The impact of the supply chain structure on bullwhip effect. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(23–24), 7309–7325.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Elleuch, H., Dafaoui, E., Elmhamedi, A., & Chabchoub, H. (2016). Resilience and vulnerability in supply chain: Literature review. IFAC-Papers OnLine, 49(12), 1448–1453.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Faisal, M. N. (2009). Prioritization of risks in supply chains. In T. Wu & J. Blackhurst (Eds.), Managing supply chain risk and vulnerability (pp. 41–66). Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M. L. (1997). What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foroohar, R. (2014). Globalization in reverse. March 27, 2014, from https://time.com/39880/globalization-in-reverse/

  • Goldin, I. & Mariathasan, M. (2014). The butterfly defect: How globalization creates systemic risks, and what to do about it. ISBN: 9780691154701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hau, L. & Wolfe, M. (2003). Supply chain security without tears. Supply Chain Management Review, Jan/Feb, 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E, 125, 285–307.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, K. T. (2015). Supply chain is a game of Jenga. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/supply-chain-game-jenga-kevin-t-isenberg/. September 16, 2015.

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L. (2002). Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties. California Management Review, 44(3), 105–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L. (2004). The triple-A supply chain. Harvard business review, 82(10), 102–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan Management Review, 38, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L., So, K. C., & Tang, C. S. (2000). The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management Science, 46(5), 626–643.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L. (1995). International sourcing and supply chain stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 343–360.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Manheim, D. (2020). The fragile world hypothesis: Complexity, fragility, and systemic existential risk. Futures, 122, 102570.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Medhora, R. P. (2017). Is Globalization in Reverse? – The more dire scenarios being bandied about are not warranted — plus, a reset may not be a bad thing. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/globalization-reverse

  • Nair, A., & Vidal, J. M. (2011). Supply network topology and robustness against disruptions: An investigation using multiagent model. International Journal of Production Research, 49(5), 1391–1404.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nishiguchi, T., & Beaudet, A. (1998). The Toyota Group and the Aisin Fire. MIT Sloan Management Review, 40, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, F.-J. (2011). Reverse globalisation: The new buzzword. https://horasis.org/opinions/reverse-globalisation-the-new-buzzword/ Business Standard, September 11, 2011.

  • Ritchie, B., & Brindley, C. (2004). Risk characteristics of the supply chain: A contingency framework. In C. Brindley (Ed.), Supply chain risk (pp. 28–42). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. (2002). Supply chain management under threat of international terrorism. International Journal of Logistics Management, 12(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2002). The collaborative supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 13(1), 15–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simchi-Levi, D., Wang, H., & Wei, Y. (2018). Increasing supply chain robustness through process flexibility and inventory. Production and Operations Management, 27(8), 1491–1496.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegler, V., Naim, M., & Wikner, J. (2012). A control engineering approach to the assessment of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 50, 6162–6187.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. M. (2012). Antifragile: things that gain from disorder. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C., & Tomlin, B. (2008). The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116, 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.008

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thiell, M. & Wilmsmeier, G. (2020). Global Supply Chain Jenga – ‘The tower has fallen’. 16/05/2020. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-supply-chain-jenga-tower-has-fallen-gordon-wilmsmeier/

  • World Economic Forum. (2019). The global Risks Reports 2020. . http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2021). The global Risks Reports 2021. Geneva. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon Wilmsmeier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thiell, M., Wilmsmeier, G. (2023). Risk-Driven Supply Chain Design: Options and Trade-Offs in Complex Environments. In: Merkert, R., Hoberg, K. (eds) Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies for the 2020s. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95764-3_17

Download citation