Supply Chain Disruptions

In this current climate and phase of uncertainty here is some recent JSCM research that explores managing risks and responding to disruptions within the supply chain, first up we look back at Henk Akkerman’s interview about his paper on Supply Chain Tsunamis.

Supply Chain Tsunamis: Research on Low-Probability, High-Impact Disruptions  Henk A. Akkermans

Previously in our Spotlight series, we sat down with  Prof. Henk A. Akkermans to talk about Supply Chain Tsunamis and the research paper Prof. Akkermans co-authored with Prof. Luk Van Wassenhove. 
This study introduces supply chain tsunamis as a major strategic supply chain phenomenon. Like their ecological counterparts, supply chain tsunamis occur at relatively long intervals and are therefore easily mistaken for unique events, rather than recurring phenomena. In contrast to ocean tsunamis, they can in principle be prevented through timely and adequate managerial action. However, their immediate impact is just as sudden and disruptive, and their ability to reshape supply chains of companies and even industries equally long-lasting. They are fundamentally different from phenomena like the bullwhip effect and black swan events. This study further explores a preliminary typology of supply chain tsunamis by Akkermans and Van Wassenhove (2013). Each type of tsunami focuses on a very different part of the supply chain periphery where the first signals of a developing tsunami can be observed. In this study, we use a detailed example from the high-tech electronics industry to describe how a supply chain tsunami unfolds over time. This is done both from an external and an internal perspective. The external perspective shows the sequence of events visible to the outside observer. The internal perspective focuses on the managerial decision-making processes that cause and (sometimes) resolve supply chain tsunamis. We link the notion of supply chain tsunamis to the broader need to revive strategic operations and supply chain management research. Supply chain tsunamis affect corporate strategy and have a profound impact on business and management. Therefore, we argue that business tsunamis deserve deeper research and suggest avenues for future research.
https://www.journalofsupplychainmanagement.com/new-blog/2018/1/5/spotlightsupply-chain-tsunamis-research-on-low-probability-high-impact-disruptions?rq=henk

A meta‐analytic review of supply chain risk management: Assessing buffering and bridging strategies and firm performance

We talked to Pamela Manhart about her recent research with James Summers and Jennifer Blackhurst's recent research entitled “A meta‐analytic review of supply chain risk management: Assessing buffering and bridging strategies and firm performance”

“Supply chain risk management has received considerable attention as firms experience more frequent and severe impact disruptions. We meta‐analytically test the Bode et al. (2011) framework of buffering and bridging supply chain risk management strategies to determine their effect on supply chain risk management. We analyze the supply chain risk management literature to find that both buffering and bridging strategies contribute to supply chain risk management. We also address the benefit of supply chain risk management. Results indicate that supply chain risk management provides a strong contribution to overall firm performance. Additionally, we identify cultural differences of these relationships. Although supply chain risk management strategies may be applied universally, their efficacy varies by culture. In conclusion, we identify and provide guidance for future work.”

Do managers’ dark personality traits help firms in coping with adverse supply chain events?

We talked to Stéphane Timmer about the paper he co-authored with Lutz Kaufman entitled “Do managers’ dark personality traits help firms in coping with adverse supply chain events?“

“This research investigates purchasing managers’ responses to adverse supply chain events. We build on attribution theory to examine how individual‐level factors—managerial personality traits, cognitive modes, and attribution of supplier responsibility—combine with firm‐level factors—buffering and bridging—to affect coping success. We combine an inductive process‐tracing approach with the neo‐configurational method of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Findings suggest that dark personality traits—traits that are generally regarded as socially aversive—are useful in coping with adverse supply chain events in combination with cross‐functionally integrated bridging, while the absence of dark personality traits is useful in combination with cross‐functionally integrated buffering. Our study contributes to the extant supply chain management literature in three ways: First, it highlights the role of dark personality traits in how purchasing managers react to supply chain risks. Second, it advances behavioral SCM literature by presenting nuanced findings on the effect of rational vs. intuitive cognitive processes in coping with such adverse events. Third, it contributes to attribution theory by providing a differentiated view on behavioral reactions following responsibility attributions. For managers, we find that high coping success might be achieved by seeking a fit between dark personality traits and firm actions. In addition, the results of the fsQCA analysis demonstrate that supply chain research using configurational studies serves as a productive complement to traditional net effect analyses.”

 Organizational Communication and Individual Behavior: Implications for Supply Chain Risk Management

We talked to  Dr. Scott DuHadway;  Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management at Portland State University, Dr. Steven Carnovale; Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management at Rochester Institute of Technology and Prof. Vijay R. Kannan; Head of Department of Management at Utah State University.

Their accepted paper to JSCM discusses "Organizational Communication and Individual Behavior: Implications for Supply Chain Risk Management"

"Risk is a significant issue for supply chain managers. Not only must they contend with multiple dimensions of risk in decision‐making, they must reconcile decision‐making with broader organizational interests. This study examines the influence of organizational communication regarding supply chain risk on individual decision‐making strategies and the perceptions of risk. A multi‐stage experimental design is applied, in which decision‐makers make decisions across three dimensions of risk and adjust their risk‐taking behavior after being presented with organizational communication regarding supply chain risk levels. The relationship between organizational communication and the perceptions of supply chain risk is then explored after decision‐makers are allowed to adjust their supply chain strategies. The results suggest that decision‐makers adapt sourcing strategies in response to organizational communication regarding supply chain risk. Specifically, they make riskier decisions when the organization communicates improvements in supply chain risk levels. However, when given specific instructions to reduce risk, they do not adjust their supply chain strategies."

Mitigation, avoidance, or acceptance? Managing supplier sustainability risk.

Hajmohammad, S. and Vachon, S. (The 2016 Harold E. Fearon Best Conceptual Paper Award)

”This study takes a conceptual theory-building approach to develop a framework for managing supplier sustainability risk—the adverse impact on a buying organization from a supplier's social or environmental misconduct. Using anecdotal evidence and the literature, we present four distinct risk management strategies that supply managers adopt: risk avoidance, monitoring‐based risk mitigation, collaboration‐based risk mitigation, and risk acceptance. Drawing on agency and resource dependence theories, we study how the interactions of two key risk management predictors—that is, the supply managers’ perceived risk and the buyer–supplier dependence structure—affect supply managers’ strategy choice. Specifically, we propose that a collaborative‐based mitigation strategy, involving direct interaction and solution development with the suppliers, is selected by supply managers in a high perceived risk‐buyer dominant context. In a low perceived risk‐buyer dominant context, however, a monitoring‐based mitigation strategy is preferred. When the buyer and the supplier are not dependent on each other and there is a low perceived risk, the supply managers accept the risk by taking no actions, whereas in a high perceived risk‐independent context the supply managers would avoid the risk by terminating the relationship with the supplier. We conclude the study by describing the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of the study as well as the avenues for future research.”

Designing the buyer–Supplier contract for risk management: Assessing complexity and mission criticality. 

Eckerd, A. and Girth, A.M. (Honorable mention, the 2016 Harold E. Fearon Best Empirical Paper Award)

“In this study, we argue that contract design is a predominant strategy to set contractual expectations among supply chain partners to manage risk. We draw upon resource dependence theory and transaction cost economics to suggest that variation in risk management strategies is dependent upon both the complexity of the procured product or service and the extent to which it is mission-critical. In this preliminary study of public‐sector supply chains, we find evidence based on an analysis of over 240,000 buyer–supplier contracts that when both mission criticality and service complexity are low, suppliers tend to bear most of the disruption risk by agreeing to fixed‐price contracts. When mission criticality is high, we find that the federal government is more likely to share risk with suppliers by utilizing incentive contracts. Evidence suggests that cost‐reimbursement and incentive contracts are preferred when service complexity is high.”