The distinction between disruptions and recurrent / continuous risks is commonly used by researchers and practitioners in supply chain management. But how should the differences be reflected in the supply chain planning process? Is it necessary to differentiate between the risk types here as well?
In 2007 Sunil Chopra et al. analyzed this question in depth.
Practitioners often complain about the huge gap between practice and research related to the estimation of risks. In theory all is easy: A disruptive event just gets a probability and outcome assigned. But in practice these figures most often have to be estimated.
Todays article by Knemeyer et al. (2009) covers exactly this dilemma and tries to answer the question of how to plan for a catastrophe.
A large proportion of the efforts in supply chain risk management focus on the supply side, even though, using common definitions of supply chain management, the supply chain of course not only contains the suppliers but also the customers down to the end-customer.
Focussing on the supply side, Hallikas et al. 2005 studied the different classes of supplier relationships and what risk mitigation strategies might be effective with these classes. This classification can help both affected parties, in understanding the effects of risk on their relationship.
This is the sixth contribution to my series on doctoral dissertations on supply chain risk management. An immense effort and dedication is spent on these works only to find the results hidden in the libraries. So the goal is raise interest in the research of my peers.
For many years sustainability risks have been largely neglected. Reputational damages caused by incidents like the Brent Spar platform can reach tens of millions of dollars. But in a supply chain context companies are not only held responsible for their own actions but also for the actions of their suppliers.
In their 2010 paper Foerstl et al. analyze supplier sustainability risk and develop and test a framework for its mitigation.