Sunteți pe pagina 1din 34

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management “Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management “Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

“Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains in the era of turbulence Martin Christopher, Matthias Holweg,

Article information:

To cite this document:

Martin Christopher, Matthias Holweg, (2011) "“Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains in the era of turbulence", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41 Issue: 1, pp.63-82, doi: 10.1108/09600031111101439 Permanent link to this document:

Downloaded on: 19 April 2017, At: 03:33 (PT) References: this document contains references to 26 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17897 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2008),"Supply chain management and suppliers' HRM practice", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 4 pp. 259-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540810882143

(2004),"Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 Iss 5 pp. 388-396 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545436

5 pp. 388-396 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545436 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:383402 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

“Supply Chain 2.0”: managing supply chains in the era of turbulence

Martin Christopher

School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK, and

Matthias Holweg

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

63

Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Purpose – An underlying principle of supply chain management is to establish control of the end-to-end process in order to create a seamless flow of goods. The basic idea is that variability is detrimental to performance as it causes cost in the form of stock-outs, poor capacity utilisation, and costly buffers. This paper questions this approach and argues that in the light of increasing turbulence a different approach to supply chain management is needed. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports on the authors’ work on a Supply Chain Volatility Index and shows how current supply chain practices may no longer fit the context most businesses now operate in – primarily because these practices were developed under assumptions of stability that no longer hold true. The paper illustrates the findings with case study evidence of firms that have had to adjust to various aspects of turbulence. Findings – The paper is able to show that most current supply chain management models emanate from a period of relative stability, and second, that there is considerable evidence that we will experience increasing turbulence in the future. This calls into question whether current supply chain models that feature some dynamic flexibility, yet are built on the general premise of control, will be suitable to meet the challenge of increased turbulence. Practical implications – It is argued that what is needed to master the era of turbulence is structural flexibility which builds flexible options into the design of supply chains. This marks a major departure from current thinking and will require revisiting the management accounting procedures that are used to evaluate different supply chain decisions. The paper presents guidelines on how to manage supply chains in the age of turbulence: by embracing volatility as an opportunity rather than viewing it as a risk, by understanding its nature and impact, and finally by shifting the exposure to risk by building hedges into the supply chain design. Originality/value – The paper questions the fundamental premise upon which current supply chain models are built and proposes an alternative approach to build structural flexibility into supply chain decision making, which would create the level of adaptability needed to remain competitive in the face of turbulence.

Keywords Volatility, Adaptability, Supply chain management

Paper type Research paper

Supply chain management, as we know it Supply chain management (SCM) as a concept is now well established, and its adoption has helped many firms to gain a competitive edge. What we often forget is that SCM as an idea is relatively new – it first emerged in an early form less than 30 years ago[1] – but was quickly picked up by academics, consultants, and practitioners and amended and re-shaped to reflect the insights gained through the experience of implementation.

insights gained through the experience of implementation. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 41 No. 1, 2011 pp. 63-82 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0960-0035

DOI 10.1108/09600031111101439

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

64

Since then, SCM has quite literally transformed our thinking about how markets may

best be served, and how significant competitive advantage can be gained, and lost if it

is neglected.

However, as we shall argue, what has now become the “conventional wisdom” of SCM may need some radical re-thinking in the light of major changes in the global business environment in recent years. Our current SCM models were all invented during

a long period of relative stability, and as we will show below, this assumption

of stability no longer hold. We illustrate the nature of volatility in key business parameters that future supply chains will have to be able to adapt to – a setting we refer

to as “turbulence”.

Current SCM practice has sought to create what we term dynamic flexibility, which allows firms to cope with certain shifts in demand and technology, but only within

the set structure of their existing supply chain design. However, as we shall argue, to meet the challenges of a turbulent business environment, we need structural flexibility that builds flexible options into the design of supply chains. This marks a

major departure from current thinking and, as we will show, will require revisiting the management accounting procedures that are used to evaluate different supply chain decisions. We need to move away from a focus on the achievement of “lowest global cost”

to serving the centres of gravity within a flexible supply chain structure. This, for

example, means favouring “local for local” over “single global sourcing” models that are built on the premise of the low cost of a single commodity, namely the oil price or labour cost, that in the past have allowed us to ship goods half way around the world at competitive prices. In this paper, we report on two aspects of our work on turbulence: first, we present the “Supply Chain Volatility Index” that seeks to empirically quantify the degree of turbulence supply chains have been experiencing over time, and second, we critically

review the degree to which our current SCM models still hold under these changing conditions. We underpin our arguments with case study evidence from a range of firms that have been forced to deal with aspects of turbulence: we report on the cases of World Duty Free (WDF), Hewlett Packard (HP), and Toyota, who each have taken different steps towards redesigning their supply chain to meet these new challenges. We conclude with guidelines on how to adapt supply chain design decisions to promote structural flexibility.

An increasingly global, complex, and uncertain world It has become common practice for academics and practitioners alike to open

papers and speeches with a general statement about the increasingly global nature of business, the increasingly demanding customer, or the increasing uncertainty in global markets. If these perceptions were indeed true, however, they would have serious ramifications for the globe-spanning supply networks that characterise most firms these days. And sure enough, we have seen a range of crises and shocks, even prior

to the global financial crisis that started to impact supply chains from 2008 onwards:

for example, constraints in container shipping capacity saw the Baltic Dry Index (as a proxy for shipping cost) spiral upwards in 2003, the oil price rose to $140/barrel in the light of growing demand from the Brazil, Russia, India and China countries in 2008 amidst general concerns that we had reached the infamous point of “peak oil” (Hubbert, 1956; Leggett, 2006). Then, the global financial crisis of 2008 saw demand for

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

many goods and services slashed, requiring considerable flexibility to downscale capacity in many sectors. If such “turbulence” is indeed a likely feature of times to come, the obvious question this raises is whether or not our current SCM models are indeed fit for purpose? A further stimulus in this direction was two separate studies the authors undertook into the phenomena of global sourcing and off-shoring ventures, in which we found a surprising number of companies who were not necessarily gaining real benefits from these strategies (Christopher et al. , 2007; Holweg et al. , 2011). How could this be, given that the labour cost saving in the countries these firms were sourcing from (or manufacturing in) should by far have outweighed the additional transport cost? Upon further investigation, it soon transpired that an increasing turbulence in different business parameters was leading to higher levels of supply chain risk. A hypothesis was born, which we have since taken forward and investigated with a range of firms we have worked with. We initially asked senior operations managers about the main challenges in running their supply chains, and although the specific answers differed, the underlying message was the same: the consistent perception was that the business world in which they are operating is inherently unstable. However, despite overwhelming qualitative evidence of a perceived increase in volatility, the lack of empirical evidence was unsatisfactory. Hence, we set out to produce just that – an index of the key business parameters that potentially impact supply chain performance.

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

65

The Supply Chain Volatility Index The overriding question that drove the creation of this index was simple: will the seismic events of the last two years – shipping cost and oil price hikes, financial meltdown, recession, collapse in consumer, and business confidence – pass by, as have many shocks to the system before, or is there now something fundamentally different impacting almost every aspect of the business environment? After all, there have been oil shocks and terrorist attacks before, and each time we saw a timely return to stability. However, there is a crucial difference: this time, we have seen unprecedented levels of volatility in several key business parameters simultaneously, not only in the price of oil but also in the price of many commodities and raw materials. We argue that we are not facing a temporary shock that will quickly pass, but in fact are on the verge of an “era of turbulence”, that will feature higher variance in key business parameters: from energy cost, to raw materials, and currency exchange rates. To illustrate, Table I shows some statistical data for key business parameters:

exchange rates, sample commodity and raw material prices, interest rates, and shipping costs. For some, there is more variability over time, for others less. What does this tell us? Actually, very little: there is a wide range of variation in many key business indicators, but often not at the same time. A key argument in our analysis is that we tend to focus our attention on the absolute swings in parameters, which are important in the impact they have on business generally, but we often neglect the much more critical rate of change, which has increased in recent years. Clearly, both aspects of volatility matter, even though the latter is generally not reported in the media, and thus tends to be neglected. We argue that this is a dangerous omission and thus consider both aspects in our measurements.

Since 1985

Index, Dry

2,099.14

20.16

568.00

0.89

11,465.00

1,872.65

in

US$

Baltic

Since 1989

MB-steel

182.94

1.30

0.40

250.00

1,205.00

456.31

coil

$/MT

CR

three

A £/MT

LME-Copper,

Since 1970

4,350.94

403.50

1,288.89

782.95

2.11

0.61

month

grade

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

U$/troy

Bullion

Since 1970

23.74

34.87

957.80

173.63

0.51

341.21

Gold ounce

LBM

FOB

Oil-Brent

Since 1970

U$/barrel

month

1.80

18.50

22.77

24.09

123.62

0.81

Crude

current

clearing

base

Since 1970

(%)

2 0.74

8.57

2.00

17.00

3.51

0.41

Notes: FOB – Free on board; LBM – London Bullion Market

banks

rate

UK

(%)

bank

months

Since 1975

rate

3.44

3.66

20.68

8.78

18.47

0.42

inter

middle

three

UK

(£)

GBP

Since 1970

to rate

2 0.36

0.18

1.07

2.62

0.33

1.81

(WMR)

exchange

US$

average rate

Compound

Maximum

Minimum

growth

Period

Mean

CoV

SD

IJPDLM

41,1

66

Table I. Volatility in key business parameters

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

In order to illustrate the degree to which overall turbulence in our business environment is changing over time, we have created a Supply Chain Volatility Index. To this effect, we use the coefficient of variation (CoV) as a normalised and scale-free measurement of volatility, which allows us to simultaneously compare seemingly incompatible business parameters. Specifically, we consider the following indicators, as shown in Table II. Arguably, this list is an arbitrary selection, and we do not claim it is the only possible set one could consider. However, we would argue that it is a good balance between simplicity and a comprehensive coverage of financial, stock market, material, and transportation cost-related indicators. For each of these, we show the band of annual volatility in their CoV. As we pointed out before, not all indices move at the same time. Many are correlated, but not all react to events or global shifts in the same way. So, what we get is a “band of volatility”, the light area in Figure 1. To illustrate how the overall business environment is shifting, we have added an aggregate or meta-index of variation to the chart (the red line). This is the mean CoV across all eight indices. Our argument here is that it does not matter whether there is an increased level of volatility in the oil price, the exchange rate, or the London Inter-Bank Overnight Rate rate. What does matter is when several of these indicators move together, as these changes the general frame of reference. The most important observation from this analysis is that we have seen shocks before, such as oil crises and “dot.com” bubbles, or political instability and terrorism, but what we are now experiencing is fundamentally different from any of these previous events. As of 2008, we have left an almost 30-year lasting period of stability behind and are now entering a period of turbulence that was last seen during the oil crisis of 1973. In fact, the index value for 1973 was 0.166, and then never exceeded 0.132, before reaching 0.254 in 2008. Furthermore, we see that over the past four decades, there have – on many occasions – been oscillations in particular business parameters. However, as the index shows in relation to the maximum values, just because a single value is showing a drastic increase does not necessarily lead to an

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

67

Type

Parameter

Source

Availability of data

Financial

EUR/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate USD/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate UK clearing banks base rate –

Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1970

Financial

Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1970

Financial

Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1970

middle rate Raw materials Crude Oil-Brent FOB U$/BBL Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Since 1970

Raw materials

Gold Bullion LBM U$/troy ounce LME-Copper, grade A three

Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1970

Raw materials

Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1970

month £/MT Stock market VIX – Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility

Chicago Board Options Exchange

Since 1986

Table II. Key business parameters considered

Index Shipping cost Baltic Dry Index Thomson Reuters Datastream

Since 1985

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

68

Figure 1. The Supply Chain Volatility Index, 1970-2010

0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 *1 *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 0.000
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
*1
*2
*3
*4
*5
*6
*7
0.000
Min-max CoV interval
Average CoV
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010

Notes: *1, Arab Oil Embargo; 2, Iranian Revolution; 3, Saudi Arabia abandons swing producer role; 4, Black Monday; 5, Invasion of Kuwait; 6, Asian Economic Crisis; 7, Global Financial Crisis. All data up until October 2010 is included in the index. For updated versions please go to:

www.innovation.jbs.cam.ac.uk; a list of constituents: EUR/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate; USD/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate; Crude Oil-Brent FOB U$/BBL; Gold Bullion LBM U$/troy ounce; LME-Copper, grade A three month £/MT; UK clearing banks base rate -middle rate; VIX from 1986; Baltic Dry Index 1985; yearly average coefficients Sources: Datastream; EIA (for crude oil data); Chicago Board Options Exchange (for VIX data)

overall increase in the index. Clearly, the level of dependence across indicators is far simpler, and it would be foolish to assume that one could predict seismic shifts by inference from the motion of single indicators. This finding is in particular of great significance, as ever since we have started talking about “supply chain management” in the early 1980s, the average band of variation across the key indicators has been reasonably stable. We have seen isolated shocks, but not only did we revert back to stability fairly quickly, the volatility index – as a measure of all indicators – never really showed any major oscillations. And it is this stability that has led us to design the supply chain structures that we have today – many of which are built on the premise of the low price of a single commodity, such as oil, or low labour cost. Yet, the environment in which we do business is changing, and so must our supply chain strategies. We must question all our supply chain models that were developed under the assumption of overall stability.

Approaches for dealing with turbulence The basic problem we are dealing with in this paper is not novel. Uncertainty creates risks in the supply chain, and in fact, we already have a wide range of concepts on hand on how to deal with it. Given the ample work already done on supply chain risk, robustness, resilience, is there a need for this paper? There is, and for two reasons: first, resilience invariably causes additional cost, in the form of slack resources (e.g. inventory and capacity), as well as higher coordination cost (e.g. due to multiple sourcing). While conceptually sensible, under stable

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

conditions, this will place any firm at a competitive disadvantage: if the supply chain is stable, the resources spent on creating that resilience are wasted. As Christopher

question will have to be answered if the commercial

community is voluntarily to sacrifice short-term cost optimisation in favour of improved and sustainable supply chain-wide resilience.” Second, what we are talking about are uncertainties that arise from all sorts of areas, some of which can be controlled, some others which cannot. These are not isolated incidents (such as 9/11 or an earthquake), but fundamental shifts in many key variables that determine our business environment. In that sense, we argue that we need to rethink how we operate supply chains in the era of uncertainty and create supply chains that are adaptable to such changes. Some attempts to discuss the notion of supply chain “adaptability” have been made, albeit without any reference to the kinds of turbulence we are debating in this paper (Lee, 2004). Now let us discuss the measures that can be taken to deal with turbulence, in order to create such levels of adaptability, and how these differ from traditional SCM.

and Peck (2004) state this “[

]

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

69

Control: the traditional approach to SCM Any variability is traditionally viewed as threatening and counter-productive in the operations management world. This view has given rise to operational practices such as lean, SIX SIGMA, push-based production strategies that enable firms to produce against a long-term stable forecast, and strategic initiatives including advance contracts (“pay-as-billed”), outsourcing, contract manufacture, etc. On the information flow side, we have seen many concepts that aim to improve visibility, such as vendor-managed inventory (VMI), collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) and the like (Holweg et al. , 2005). All these approaches help to eradicate variability, prevent costly dynamic distortions such as the “bullwhip”, and spread the operational risk. The key objective is to reduce cost through increased control, which in a stable world certainly does enhance profitability. In a volatile environment, however, control efforts result in a rigidity of supply chain structures and interactions. This rigidity may result in amplification rather than dampening of variability. Thus, the more variation in the input parameters is present, the less effective our control model tends to become. The variability that hurts performance and is related to supply chain design can emanate from a wide range of factors: from the demand side (e.g. shifts in consumer demand for products), the supply side (e.g. hikes in steel, copper, and gold prices), regulation (e.g. shift in consumer perception towards climate change), political (e.g. opening of markets and growth in East Asia, but also political rows and regional conflict), energy cost (e.g. the price for oil, gas and electricity, and the implications for transportation cost), financial (e.g. exchange rates, currency fluctuations, and availability of credit), and technology (e.g. shifts in dominant designs, disruptive innovations). Given that these factors are of a very different nature, we need a generic strategy that anticipates, rather than reacts to, turbulence.

The need to move from dynamic to structural flexibility Most firms by now have learned how to build dynamic flexibility into their supply chains. They have made the transition from a supply chain geared exclusively for factory efficiency, which was riddled with bullwhip and other dynamic distortions,

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

70

to a stable supply chain that managed seamless flows across tiers in the network. This is the key tenet of what the SCM literature has discussed ever since 1982. Very few firms, however, have learned how to build structural flexibility into their supply chains. Two well-published cases are Dell and Zara (Ferdows et al. , 2004; Fugate and Mentzer, 2004; Kapuscinski et al., 2004), which are amongst the few firms that not only manage endogenous turbulence, but have also attempted to extend their strategies into managing demand-driven exogenous turbulence. Dell manages the demand for its components by adjusting prices. Zara has developed a “rapid-fire” supply chain that is able to respond very quickly to changes in fashion and demand by drawing upon what can be best described as a set of “modular” small factories in Northern Spain. However, such competitive advantage can be short-lived, as the case of Crocs vividly illustrates (Marks et al. , 2007). The reason is that the ideas and practices of SCM have largely emerged over a period of relative stability – as demonstrated by the Volatility Index – they have not been tested until recently in more turbulent conditions. We need a new mental model for how to deal with turbulence in the supply chain, by shifting away from a single-minded quest for efficiency to a balanced view on how to create adaptable supply chain structures (Table III). In many ways, the departure from the traditional “efficient” supply chain, to one that is able to cope with dynamic distortions (using tools such as CPFR, VMI, and information sharing), to a supply chain that is able to adapt structurally is a natural transition (Figure 2). However, it does require a fundamentally different perception of what a “good” supply chain design should look like. Let us define in more detail what is meant by structural flexibility.

What exactly is structural flexibility? Structural flexibility refers to the ability of the supply chain to adapt to fundamental changes in the business environment. Here, we first and foremost consider the centres of gravity in a firms’ supply chain system. We can broadly define “centre of gravity” in this context as the nexus between supply and demand. Using a mechanical analogy, if each customer has a string to pull products from your factory (the more items, the stronger the pull) and major raw material and component suppliers hold strings that pull the location of the manufacturing plants towards them: on balance, your centre of gravity would be where all forces even each other out. And there might well be several centres that emerge, in many cases by product category, or by market region. Why does this matter? The centre of gravity minimises the distance to your customers, so this would be the best “local for local” solution. A firm might also have

Efficient supply chain

Adaptable supply chain

Focus

Establish control to reduce variability and thus cost to compete

Embrace volatility and develop superior ability to adapt

Decision time horizon Short-term, quarterly results Long-term viability, while

Table III. Efficient versus adaptable supply chain

View on turbulence

Approach to dealing with turbulence

Bad, as it causes instability and cost

Use SIX SIGMA and other tools to eradicate it where possible

maintaining positive cash flow Inevitable, hence the need to pre- empt it by creating adaptable structures Use tools to increase flexibility “bandwidth” to cope

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

Structural flexibility Low High High Stable Adaptable supply supply chain chain Dynamic flexibility Efficient
Structural flexibility
Low
High
High
Stable
Adaptable
supply
supply
chain
chain
Dynamic
flexibility
Efficient
supply
chain
Low

several centres across the world. In this case, consider having a plant in each of them. Arrange your supply chain accordingly. For example, it might well make sense to have key suppliers in each of your main market regions, so that jumps in transportation cost can be offset. To illustrate this point, consider the case of Procter and Gamble’s snack food, Pringles. Pringles can be bought around the world, in their classic tubular packaging. Yet, they are made in only two factories (one in the Carolinas in the USA, and one in Belgium). Does this make sense? Under conditions of stability, it certainly does. However, as shipment costs are a significant fraction of the overall product cost, which has a low value density, this leaves Pringles open to any shift in transportation cost when serving centres of gravity outside the USA or Europe. The key question is if the “centre of gravity” in terms of market demand and supply characteristics changes can the supply chain be easily re-configured to cope with that change? Most supply chains lack the ability to adapt quickly to changed market and environmental conditions. This is primarily because they have been designed with efficiency rather than flexibility in mind. Supply chains that exhibit structural flexibility typically will have achieved that status through a number of actions, of which we would argue the main ones include:

Dual sourcing , by having alternative sources for key raw materials and major components.

Asset sharing , i.e. being prepared to share physical assets such as factories, distribution centres or trucks with other companies, including competitors. For example, several major British retailers and their biggest suppliers are examining the opportunities to share distribution centres and transportation in order to create additional economies of scale.

Separating “base” from “surge” demand , by recognising that most products will have a base level of predictable demand that can be planned for. Demand above the base level (“surge”) may be managed through the use of postponement techniques.

.

.

.

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

71

Figure 2. Moving from dynamic to structural flexibility

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

72

Postponement , by holding the base materials, sub-assemblies, and modules as strategic inventory and assembling or configuring the product against actual orders. Often this is referred to as the “vanilla product” strategy, whereby the generic “vanilla” product is shipped, before it is converted into customised products locally, close to the end customer.

Flexible labour arrangements , by utilising “annual hours” agreements or by making use of agency personnel, so that the labour force can be adjusted – with little or no cost penalty – to meet seasonal demand swings throughout the year, as well as shifts in demand over the product life cycle.

Rapid manufacture , by using new technology to enable the economic manufacture of products in small batches in relatively small facilities, thus permitting dispersed manufacturing. The development of “mini-mills” in the steel industry which are much more flexible than traditional steel making facilities is a good example of this idea.

Outsourcing , to external providers, such as contract manufacturers and third-party logistics firms, to gain access to capacity when required and convert fixed costs into variable costs. For example, DHL is currently working with several vehicle manufacturers in order to create joint aftermarket logistics systems that share trucks and warehousing facilities.

Let us consider how HP, a long-established manufacturer of a range of electronic products including computers, printers, and related equipment, built structural flexibility into its supply chain, and why. The computer and printer industry today is highly competitive and many of the products are almost commodities, i.e. there is little technical or physical differentiation between competing brands. In part, this commoditisation has been accelerated by the continuing price erosion that the industry has experienced. At the same time, the rate of innovation is growing as product life cycles reduce. A further characterisation of the market is that customers – both intermediaries and end-users – have become more demanding, particularly in terms of delivery performance. New distribution channels such as the internet have enabled customers to make comparisons more easily and there is a greater tendency for those customers to “shop around”. The combined impact of all these trends is that demand for computers and printers has become more volatile making forecasting much more difficult. The common perception in the firm is that supply chain complexity has increased at HP, as indeed it has for most companies. Because of the constant flow of new product introduction and the inevitable increase in product variety, the search for complexity reduction has intensified in recent years. Some of the ways that HP has sought to combat supply chain complexity have been through:

Late product configuration . HP was an early pioneer in the design of products to enable late configuration. Their experience with their printer range is well documented but essentially involved the building of a generic product which is only localised once its final destination is known. The challenge is to extend this concept across their other product families.

Increased “local for local” production . The previous trend of manufacturing in low-cost countries has been reversed with a “near sourcing” strategy;

.

.

.

.

.

.

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

i.e. manufacturing in countries (still low cost) that are nearer to their markets. This enables shorter lead-times and a greater ability to late configure products. Manufacturing in countries such as China still continues, but increasingly products made there are sold there. The principle is to bring supply closer to demand.

Use of alternative distribution channels . While the majority of HPs sales are through traditional distributor and retail channels, their internet channel now accounts for 40 percent of the total volume. To enable a greater degree of customisation, they have introduced a “hybrid” channel with in-store kiosks where customers can configure and order products. In those markets where they have limited volume, they use traditional distributors.

Greater use of contract manufacturers . About 92 percent of HPs manufacturing of computer and printer products is out-sourced to contract manufacturers. The strategy is to out-source the basic manufacturing but to use their own factories for late configuration and for the manufacture of more complex products. They have introduced a “Factory Express” idea where they are using manufacturing execution systems to achieve a much higher level of flexibility enabling the production of different models on the same assembly line.

Centralising inventory and logistics management . To ensure greater control of inventory, HP manages their inventory globally and centralises the physical stock-holding. This enables HP to balance off “peaks” and “troughs” in demand in different countries. They have their own in-house “4PL” to co-ordinate 119 external logistics service providers. This in-house team comprises almost 400 people who plan and manage the end-to-end supply chain.

Introducing VMI . HP is working with their major distributors to implement a system of “dynamic replenishment”. Effectively, this is based on the principles of VMI whereby following a weekly update of sales from those customers, HP automatically replenishes against jointly agreed upper and lower stock bands. A major priority at HP is to improve visibility of real demand and to use that information to drive their manufacturing and replenishment strategies.

Underpinning these specific initiatives is a constant search for ways to further improve agility through the management of complexity. They are increasingly using simulation as a tool to move away from single-point forecasts and identify options that provide the greatest flexibility, while taking decisions based upon a wider definition of supply chain cost. This is the concept of “inventory-driven costs” (Callioni et al. , 2005) which seeks to measure the total cost implication of particular supply chain decisions. In other words, “structural” flexibility enables a supply chain to adjust to shifts in its centre, or centres, of gravity. Supply chain design decisions are taken with the deliberate intention of building flexibility into the structure of the system. And herein lies the key problem: how to justify the investment in this flexibility.

.

.

.

.

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

73

How to value structural flexibility While making the step from dynamic to structural flexibility might seem an obvious one; unfortunately, it does collide quite strongly with current management accounting practices. In our view, this “accounting trap” or “justification gap” (Fine and Freund, 1990)

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

74

is by far the greatest impediment to firms making better informed supply chain decisions in the era of turbulence. To give an example: for many years, now one of the most prevalent features of the globalisation of supply chains has been the tendency to move away from local facilities, be they factories or distribution centres, towards regional or even global facilities. Thus, companies that previously may have had “local-for-local” manufacturing and distribution arrangements have rationalised those facilities and centralised both manufacturing and distribution. A major motivation behind these moves has been the search for economies of scale in manufacturing, and inventory reduction across the logistics system. Underpinning the rationale for seeking inventory reduction through centralisation is the “Square Root Law” (Maister, 1976; Zinn et al., 1989) which suggests that the aggregate level of stock in a logistics system before and after a rationalisation of stock locations (e.g. distribution centres) can be estimated by the square root of the ratio of the number of locations post and prior to the rationalisation. Even though both centralised manufacturing and centralised distribution will normally lead to higher transportation costs, it is generally assumed that these higher costs can easily be paid for by the reduction in the costs of manufacture (through greater economies of scale) and through reduced inventory holding costs (as a result of the “square root law”). However, in conditions of increased turbulence and uncertainty, as we argue, too high a degree of centralisation brings with it its own risks and possibly a reduction in agility and responsiveness as a result of longer lead-times.

The cost accounting trap The main justification for centralisation – particularly of manufacturing and distribution operations – was the ability to leverage the economies of scale. In other words, by putting a greater volume of activity through the same facility, the unit cost of that activity could be reduced. This is certainly true when the level of fixed costs associated with an activity is high. However, it could be argued that many of these supposed economies of scale may be a result of the accounting principles used in the first place. In conventional “full cost” accounting, all the costs associated with an activity have to be shared across all the entities served by that activity (e.g. products housed in a warehouse). The reality though is that many of these costs may actually be sunk costs – the money having been spent in the past. Even depreciation can mislead since it is not a cost but a non-cash expense. The only costs that are relevant to the economies of scale argument are what are the “avoidable” costs of an activity – in other words, if the activity ceased what costs would disappear? Under the assumption of stable conditions, discounted cash flow (DCF) models, such as net present value (NPV)-type calculations will always favour centralised, global sourcing and manufacturing decisions (Kaplan, 1986). The reason is that NPV-based models will assume a linear trend (discounting factor) that devalues future savings. In a world of growing uncertainty, this type of approach does not work. In fact, there are three fundamental problems with current cost accounting measures, and how we deal with location and sourcing decisions:

. The use of single-point forecasts for key variables, even though those forecasts are generally wrong. These single-point forecasts (such as, for example, “The oil price in 2020 is likely to be $85/barrel”) then create a false sense of security, as managers are now able to quantify the NPV. To remedy this problem, sometimes scenarios are added. While a little better, they still are essentially subjective

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

single-point forecasts, yet simply more of them. Overall, these models assume a blanket risk factor (in NPV, the overall discount factor applied to future earnings). This is inadequate to make informed decisions if there is a high level of bi-directional volatility as generally the discount factor assumes all costs go up uniformly.

Discounted cash flow methods assume a static system, in other words, they are not capable of considering the effect that a flexible option, which could be executed at any time, might have on the performance of the configuration under scrutiny. This restricts the option for altering the design of the system later on.

They tend to fall into the trap of the “Flaw of averages” (Savage, 2002):

a common mistake is to devise future projections of metrics such as demand, prices and costs as a single “average” or “base case” value, which serves as input to the calculations. The resulting performance is then expressed as an “average” output, which is justified as the “best estimate” scenario. The DCF uses average values of key variables; however, the assumption that the average expected return is equal to the return on average inputs is wrong and dangerous because the system is punished for troughs in demand but, due to capacity constraints, will not be able to realise the entire gain for a peak in demand. Thus, to base the expected return on an average demand level is statistically simply wrong.

So, if we use planning tools that were not designed to cope with conditions of volatility and uncertainty, we should not be surprised if the resultant supply chain is inadequate for today’s turbulent environment. Current methods will by default decide against the flexible route in supply chain design. Perhaps, the biggest problem with most approaches to supply chain design is that fundamentally they tend to seek the lowest cost solution consistent with the requisite level of service. In a world characterised by turbulence, a case can be made for looking instead for solutions that will ensure the greatest level of adaptability. To illustrate the two contrasting approaches and their implications on the return on investment (ROI) over time, see Figure 3. This chart builds on Cooper and Maskell (2008), who observed a similar phenomenon in process improvement: the initial returns tend to be worse than before, while in the long term the pay-offs are greater. Unless one rigorously challenges the assumptions under which decisions are made, any investment in flexibility is virtually impossible to show a positive return.

.

.

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

75

What is the financial value of a supply chain “real option?” Given the problems, how does one convince senior management, e.g. the CFO, that investing in flexible supply chain structures does make sense financially? As we have seen above, conventional cost accounting methods will always favour the traditional route. This is not a new insight: Kaplan (1986) acknowledged that even a careful application of a DCF-technique to evaluate a potential investment will not capture the strategic benefits of flexibility. What we need is a fundamentally new way of evaluating supply chain design options. The most obvious approach is through “real options” analysis. Real options take the Black and Scholes (1973) model from valuing financial options into the “real” world, to evaluate “real” options as in the case of investments, for example.

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

76

Figure 3. The flexible route looks less attractive initially under the assumption of stable conditions but structural flexibility shifts the exposure to risk as uncertainty increases

As uncertainty increases in the future, the value of flexibility will increase! Flexible route Traditional
As uncertainty increases
in the future, the value of
flexibility will increase!
Flexible route
Traditional route
Profit
Loss
Now
Future
Return on investment

Time

Real options theory derives from corporate finance. A real option is the opportunity to choose to make, or not to make, a particular decision – usually a capital investment decision. It provides a natural alternative to traditional DCF methods in that it recognises the value that flexibility can provide. Thus, supply chain decisions that keep the most options open will normally be preferable to those decisions that shut options down. It has been argued for some time that supply chain planners might benefit from applying some of the tools emerging from real options theory, and several papers have made attempts in this field: Fine and Freund (1990) develop a model that is capable of valuing flexibility, Huchzermeier and Cohen (1996) consider the value of flexibility as a hedge against exchange rate risk, while Amram and Kulatilaka (1999) apply the logic to investing in flexible product designs. More recently, Burnetas and Ritchken (2005) apply the real options logic to supply chain contracts. Conceptually, these supply chain options can be treated similarly to financial ones, despite the fact that there are some differences (Pochard, 2003): first, there is no market for real options. Also, unlike financial options, the characteristics are not as easily known. It is more difficult to get hold of this information for real options. Yet, although we have this knowledge already, the underlying mathematics are as elegant as they are impractical, which essentially renders the original Black and Scholes model largely unusable for “everyday use” in SCM. There are other ways to implement real options in supply chain design: apart from the partial differential equations that Black and Scholes use, one could also use binomial lattice models that are at least visually more intuitive. These are still complex to calculate, but feature the probabilities at each time period, and are thus more intuitive to use. A joint limitation to both these mathematical models is their assumptions: often it is assumed that key variables are mean-reverting, or follow a Brownian motion (that is with a long tail to the right). As we have noted above, these assumptions seem very limiting and would reduce the practical value of any analysis. So, while the “real options” logic is indeed very useful, the valuation methods that are proposed are not. This, in our

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

view, is the main reason why the real options theory has not caught on in SCM: it is simply too complex and too limiting in its assumptions. The last option is Monte Carlo simulation, which we believe offers the greatest promise for supply chain design. Monte Carlo methods tend to be used when it is unfeasible or impossible to compute an exact result with a deterministic algorithm. There is no single Monte Carlo method; instead, the term describes a large and widely used class of approaches. These models are easy to build and use, and the ability to run many thousands of simulation runs provides the perfect opportunity to understand the impact of variability on the system. Using Monte Carlo methods will enable different supply chain solutions to be evaluated in terms of their ability to cope with volatility in the underpinning parameters (e.g. transport cost) and will ensure that the resulting supply chain design is not based on the value of a single factor (e.g. low labour cost). Either way, it is important to understand that underlying any of these valuations models, whether based on DCF’s or real options, are assumptions. We tend to focus on tools in order to give us “hard” evidence, but really, at the end of the day it all comes down to a qualitative assessment whether or not we believe in the assumptions these models are based on, essentially a “leap of faith”. In the following section, we will present some guidelines on how to go about building structural flexibility.

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

77

Managing supply chains under turbulence The first step in building structural flexibility into supply chain strategy is to really understand the sources of variability and build simple models that can help mitigate this variability. It is not enough to simply build some flexibility into the system, as the case of Crocs, the maker of the briefly popular multicoloured plastic shoes, illustrates:

Crocs actually became the subject of a best-practice case study (Marks et al. , 2007), highlighting how Crocs developed an “extremely flexible supply chain” that allowed it to adjust to changes in the marketplace. This flexibility was achieved through building excess manufacturing capacity. The model worked very well for as long as demand exceeded supply, but Crocs management had not considered the implications of receding demand. A sensitivity analysis would have shown to what degree their supply chain structure was vulnerable to a downturn in demand. In 2009, demand turned down, and soon revenues were down a third, while losses were mounting. Crocs model was flexible, but only in one direction. The key is to accept volatility, understand its impact for both upwards and downwards swings, and to build hedges against it. Let us go through these aspects in more detail.

Embrace volatility, do not fight it Turbulence does create risk, but this risk also provides an opportunity. Uncertainty cannot be changed, but the exposure to the risk it creates can be managed. In that sense, it is vital to accept turbulence as a given, and to understand its impact. Consider the case of WDF, the UK’s largest duty-free retailer that operates at major airports. Even though WDF has experienced significant growth in recent years (partly organic and partly through merger – in particularly the merger in 2009 with Spanish duty-free retailer, Alpha), it has been faced with an increasing degree of market turbulence and volatility of late. At the macro level, the world recession has had a big impact on passenger numbers generally, particularly at regional airports which have a higher proportion of leisure passengers. Sources of volatility at a micro level include such

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

78

factors as the security arrangements at airports where the length of time taken to process passengers will vary according to daily changes in procedures (e.g. requesting passengers to remove their shoes) which itself directly impacts the amount of time individual passengers will have available for duty-free shopping. Further, sources of volatility at a micro level can be airlines changing their departure times – for example, passengers leaving the UK for non-EU destinations can generally buy goods at a lower price, and if the time of the flight changes or the plane is delayed, there can be a significant change in demand patterns. A further impact on sales is created when airlines either withdraw a service or change airports – Ryanair (a European low-cost airline) moving some of its services from one airport to another because of lower landing charges is a case in point. Against this background of uncertainty and increasingly unpredictable demand WDF is seeking to make the transition from a “forecast-driven” to a “demand-driven” business. The main thrust behind this decision is to break the structural rigidity that was built into is current forecast-driven supply chain, which often featured long replenishment lead-times and high inventory levels for its 15,000 stock keeping units (SKUs). Instead, WDF aims for a responsive supply chain structure that can adapt to shifts in costumer flows and buying behaviours. One of the strategies WDF has adopted is to focus on its single distribution centre (based near London Heathrow Airport) to find ways in which its existing capacity can be used more flexibly. Using what are in effect “SIX SIGMA” methodologies, WDF has been able to improve the utilisation of capacity and to improve flow-through so that it can cope better with the peaks and troughs in demand. So successful has this strategy been that WDF was able to cope with the opening of Terminal five without additional warehousing capacity. A further degree of flexibility in the Heathrow distribution centre is through the use of agency staff. Becoming demand driven requires a “just-in-time” delivery philosophy based upon more frequent deliveries to their air-side outlets based on more frequent demand signals, i.e. point of sale data polls. The intention is, where possible, to move to a “continuous replenishment” philosophy where as products are sold they are rapidly replenished. WDF has recognised that demand-driven supply chains require suppliers to be highly responsive. They are actively examining ways in which in-bound lead-times from suppliers can be reduced – particularly through a greater level of shared information and the introduction of VMI arrangements.

Understand the nature and impact of turbulence The impact of turbulence will vary by supply chain. Not all firms are equally affected, so managers need to ask themselves whether they really know how much their unit cost increases if, for example, the oil price doubles? It is often a good idea to make use of the Pareto 80/20 rule and separate the relatively small number of product lines which provide most of the volume from the “long tail” of slow moving (and hence less predictable) lines. The fast movers, because they tend to be more predictable, can be made to forecast whereas the slow movers need to be demand driven. These slow movers pose the greatest danger, and here the exposure needs to be managed. In the case of WDF, for example, with a product range of approximately 15,000 SKUs, there is inevitably a “long-tail” on their sales Pareto curve. A full 88 percent of their SKUs sell , 1 unit per day per store. One response to this issue has been a focus on range

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

rationalisation. Keeping control of variety is a continuing challenge with new product launches and promotions increasing every year. There are more and more niche segments, e.g. vodka with different flavours, different price points, and positioning strategies. About half WDF’s SKUs change each year making it difficult to use traditional methods of sales forecasting. So, the case for placing your operations (be it manufacturing or distribution) nearer to the centres of gravity strengthens. Before managers make this decision, they will need to understand how changes in demand and transportation costs might affect the profitability of their supply chain structure. There has been a tendency to outsource “surge” demand, and to produce the base in house. Is this the right way to go?

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

79

Challenge the economies of scale mindset Keeping options open and remembering that big is not always beautiful are helpful advice. In fact, in the previous studies, we have shown how small-scale facilities can have a range of benefits (Pil and Holweg, 2003). The need to create large-scale plants is no longer there. The economies of scale argument are still valid, but it does assume stability to realise the returns predicted. It simply should no longer be the overriding argument in determining supply chain decisions! Thus, a diversified manufacturing and sourcing footprint is clearly a good way to build structural flexibility: why not make/source the base load in China, and the surge demand locally in the UK and USA? Here, Toyota offers an interesting and counter-intuitive insight. Renowned for its efficiency, Toyota manufacturing plants have an average volume of 400,000 units per annum. Yet right in Tokyo, in what still is one of the most expensive real estates in the world, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota, Central Motors. Central Motors used to be an independent spin-off of Toyota (set up by workers made redundant from the Kamato truck plant during the crisis of 1950), and ever since produced niche vehicles for Toyota as contract manufacturer. It currently produces 11,000 vehicles per year across three models. Amongst these is the Corolla Axio, which is also produced by Toyota’s Takaoka plant that is not even two hours away by train. Not only does the factory sit right in the centre of Tokyo, the most expensive land for industrial production, it is also locked in residential areas. It is a small-scale producer of 11,000 cars per year, in one of the most expensive labour cost regions. Why would Toyota keep this seemingly inefficient plant open? The reason is simple: experimentation. As Kanji Ishii, formerly Toyota’s head of the NUMMI plant in California, and now president of Central Motors confirmed: Toyota is using Central Motors as an experimental lab of how to work efficiently at small scale. There might not be a case for setting up a full-scale plant, but once it can be shown to work efficiently at lower volume, the case for establishing small local-for-local factories increases a lot. And with astonishing results: Central Motors produces the Corolla, one of Toyota’s main volume models globally, and comes within 20,000 Yen (about $220) of cost at the main large-scale Toyota sister plant. In terms of labour cost, this is a , 10 percent disadvantage, while the overall plant volume is 36 times smaller! Mr Ishii even talked about plans to undercut the sister plant in the near future. Toyota’s logic is simple: if you can produce competitively on a small scale in Japan, you also can in any other market. So, Central Motors becomes the blueprint for small-scale “local-for-local” manufacturing units that serve regional markets with local products.

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

80

Outlook Volatility in the business environment has increased significantly and is very likely to continue to be a prominent feature of the supply chain landscape for the foreseeable future. We argue that this volatility is very likely to increase, and we must consider not only the absolute change in key business parameters, but even more so their rate of change which will have significant implications for the way we design and run supply chains. In short, the risks associated with both firm-specific and external turbulence are now greater than they have ever been since the concept of SCM was first presented. Current supply chains are built upon an assumption of stability, very often using NPV-based models to assess the economic viability of off-shoring and global sourcing scenarios. There is a major flaw in this logic, as the assumption of stability clearly no longer holds, and firms now suffer from their self-inflicted rigidity. As a result, much of the conventional wisdom about supply chain design needs to be reviewed. We used to aim for efficiency through “optimised” supply chains that aimed at controlling variation, but this notion no longer works. Faced with increasing turbulence, such rigid structures will lack the flexibility to cope with unexpected changes in demand or supply conditions. Any competitive advantage is temporary, so it is important to build supply chains that are adaptable to turbulence, be it up- and downswings in demand, or supply-side factors such as oil price fluctuations. Several firms are already experimenting with such structural flexibility, as the cases of WDF, Toyota and HP have shown. Yet, there is no “silver bullet” to managing supply chains in this era of turbulence; the tools at hand remain largely the same, but we need to apply them in a new “mindset” that considers the option value of flexibility. While such flexible options will not always pay-off, on average they will, so we argue that firms that are considering flexibility in their supply chain design will be much better equipped to deal with this era of turbulence. We need to move away from the “control” mindset that seeks to eradicate variability, towards building structures that can cope with turbulence, and embrace volatility as an opportunity. As paradoxical as it might sound, the current crisis is also an opportunity: as we have witnessed at many firms, the crisis aftermath is now permitting managers to question the most fundamental supply chain decisions in the firm. Previously widely accepted mantras such as that the “low-cost country advantage” generally outweighs the transportation cost in global supply chains no longer holds. We can neither afford any longer to assume stability in our financial planning, nor can we afford to build supply chains on the premise of a single commodity price. The era of turbulence demands a new mental framework to designing and managing supply chains – a “Supply Chain 2.0”.

Note 1. On June 4, 1982, the Financial Times published an article by Arnold Kransdorff on Booz Allen’s new “supply chain management” concept. A more detailed report was published later by Oliver and Webber called “Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with strategy” (published in the “Outlook” magazine by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, and reprinted 1992) in Christopher (1992).

References Amram, M. and Kulatilaka, N. (1999), Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Black, F. and Scholes, M. (1973), “The pricing of options and corporate liabilities”, Journal of

“Supply

Chain 2.0”

Political Economy, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 637-54.

Burnetas, A. and Ritchken, P.H. (2005), “Option pricing with downward-sloping demand curves:

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

the case of supply chain options”, Management Science , Vol. 51, pp. 566-80.

Revolutionizing an Industry’s Supply Chain Model for Competitive Advantage by Case

 

Callioni, G., Montgros, X., Slagmulder, R., Wassenhove, L.V. and Wright, L. (2005), “Inventory

 

driven costs”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 83, pp. 135-41.

 

Christopher, M. (Ed.) (1992), Logistics: The Strategic Issues , Chapman Hall, London, pp. 63-75.

81

Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal of

 

Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

 

Christopher, M., Jia, F., Khan, O., Mena, C., Palmer, A. and Sandberg, E. (2007), “Global sourcing and logistics”, Logistics project number LP 0507, Department for Transport, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield.

 

Cooper, R. and Maskell, B.H. (2008), “How to manage through worse-before-better”, MIT Sloan

 

Management Review , Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 58-65.

 

Ferdows, K., Lewis, M.A. and Machuca, J.A.D. (2004), “Rapid-fire fulfilment”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 104-10. Fine, C. and Freund, R. (1990), “Optimal investment in product-flexible manufacturing capacity”,

 

Management Science , Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 449-66.

 

Fugate, B.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (2004), “Dell’s supply chain DNA”, Supply Chain Management Review , Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 20-4. Holweg, M., Disney, S., Holmstro¨m, J. and Sma˚ros, J. (2005), “Supply chain collaboration: making

 

sense of the strategy continuum”, European Management Journal , Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-81.

 

Holweg, M., Reichhart, A. and Hong, E. (2011), “On risk and cost in global sourcing”, International Journal of Production Economics (forthcoming). Hubbert, M.K. (1956), “Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels”, American Petroleum Institute Drilling and Production Practice , pp. 7-25. Huchzermeier, A. and Cohen, B. (1996), “Valuing operational flexibility under exchange rate

 

risk”, Operations Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 100-13.

 

Kaplan, R.S. (1986), “Must CIM be justified on faith alone ?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64

 

No. 2, pp. 87-97. Kapuscinski, R., Zhang, R.Q., Carbonneau, P., Moore, R. and Reeves, B. (2004), “Inventory

 

decisions in Dell’s supply chain”, Interfaces , Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 191-205.

 

Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-A supply chain”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 102-12. Leggett, J. (2006), Half Gone. Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis , Portobello Books, London.

 

Maister, D.H. (1976), “Centralization of inventories and the square root law”, International

 
 

Marks, M., Holloway, C., Holloway, C., Lee, H., Hoyt, D.W. and Silverman, A. (2007), Crocs:

9-GS5-7, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.

 

Pil, F.K. and Holweg, M. (2003), “Exploring scale: the advantages of thinking small”, MIT Sloan

 

Management Review , Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 33-9.

 

Pochard, S. (2003), “Managing risks of supply chain disruptions: dual sourcing as a real option”, TP dissertation, MIT ESD, Cambridge, MA.

 

Savage, S. (2002), “The flaw of averages”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 80 No. 11, pp. 20-2.

 

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

IJPDLM

41,1

82

Zinn,

inventory

centralization/decentralization on aggregate safety stock: the ‘Square Root Law’ revisited”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

W.,

Levy,

M.

and

Bowersox,

D.

(1989),

“Measuring

the

effect

of

Further reading Oliver, R.K. and Webber, M.D. (1982), “Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with

strategy”, Outlook , Booz, Allen and Hamilton, NewYork, NY.

Corresponding author Martin Christopher can be contacted at: m.g.christopher@cranfield.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Pallab Biswas Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India . 2017. Modeling Reconfigurability in Supply Chains using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling. Journal of Advances in Management Research [Abstract] [PDF]

2. Peter Tatham Griffith University Gold Coast Australia Yong Wu Griffith University Gold Coast Australia Gyöngyi Kovács HANKEN Helsinki Finland Tim Butcher RMIT University Melbourne Australia . 2017.

Supply chain management skills to sense and seize opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics

Management

3. Sachin Kumar Mangla, Kannan Govindan, Sunil Luthra. 2017. Prioritizing the barriers to achieve sustainable consumption and production trends in supply chains using fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Cleaner Production 151, 509-525. [CrossRef]

4. Salvatore Cannella, Roberto Dominguez, Jose M. Framinan. 2017. Inventory record inaccuracy – The impact of structural complexity and lead time variability. Omega 68, 123-138. [CrossRef]

5. LiXun Xun Li xun.li@nicholls.edu Xun Li is as an Associate Professor of Management at Nicholls State University, LA. Her research interests are in the areas of supply chain management, operations management, decision support systems and information privacy. She has publications in journals including Journal of Supply Chain Management, MIS Quarterly, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Logistics Management and so on. She has extensive experience in teaching operations management and business statistics. WuQun Qun Wu qunw@unr.edu Qun Wu is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Nevada, Reno. He obtained his PhD in finance from the University of Kentucky, USA. His research interests are mainly in corporate finance and investments. He has publications in journals including Journal of Banking & Finance, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Journal of Real Estate Research and so on. He has extensive experience in teaching different levels of corporate finance, investments, portfolio management, international finance and business management. HolsappleClyde W. Clyde W. Holsapple cwhols@email.uky.edu Clyde W. Holsapple, a Fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute, holds the Rosenthal Endowed Chair in the University of Kentucky’s Gatton College of Business. He has authored over 150 research articles in journals including Operations Research, Journal of Operations Management, Organization Science, Decision Sciences, Decision Support Systems, International Journal of Logistics Management, Communications of the ACM, Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, Journal of Knowledge Management, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Expert Systems with Applications, Knowledge and Process Management, The Information Society, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Group Decision and Negotiation, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics and the American Journal of Medical Quality. His books include Handbook on Knowledge Management, Foundations of Decision Support Systems and Handbook on Decision Support Systems. Professor Holsapple’s research impact level exceeds 10,000 citations, with an h-index above 50. He has served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce; Senior Editor of Information Systems Research; Area Editor of Decision Support Systems and the INFORMS Journal on Computing; and Associate Editor of Management Science and Decision Sciences. He has chaired over 30 completed doctoral dissertations. GoldsbyThomas Thomas Goldsby goldsby.2@osu.edu Dr Thomas Goldsby is Professor of Logistics at The Ohio State University. His research interests include logistics strategy, supply chain integration and the theory and practice of lean and agile supply chain strategies. He has published more than 50 articles in academic and professional journals and serves as a frequent

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

speaker at academic conferences, executive education seminars and professional meetings. He is co-author of four books: The Definitive Guide to Transportation (Financial Times, 2013), Global Macrotrends and Their Impact on Supply Chain Management (Financial Times, 2013), The Design and Management of Sustainable Supply Chains (Cambridge University Press, 2014) and Lean Six Sigma Logistics: Strategic Development to Operational Success (J. Ross Publishing, 2005), with translations in Chinese, Korean and Russian. Dr Goldsby is a recipient of the Best Paper Award at the Transportation Journal (2012-2013), Bernard J. LaLonde Award at the Journal of Business Logistics (2007) and has twice received the Accenture Award for best paper published in the International Journal of Logistics Management (1998 and 2002). He is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Business Logistics and Transportation Journal. He serves as Associate Director of the Center for Operational Excellence, a Research Fellow of the National Center for the Middle Market and a research associate of the Global Supply Chain Forum, all housed at Ohio State’s Fisher College of Business. Nicholls State Univeristy, Thibodaux, Louisiana, USA University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA . 2017. An empirical examination of firm financial performance along dimensions of supply chain resilience. Management Research Review 40:3, 254-269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. TateWendy L. Wendy L. Tate Wendy.Tate@utk.edu BalsLydia Lydia Bals lydia.bals@hs-mainz.de Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA Department of Supply Chain & Operations Management, University of Applied Sciences Mainz, Mainz, Germany Department of Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark . 2017. Outsourcing/offshoring insights: going beyond reshoring to rightshoring. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:2/3, 106-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. Sihem Ben Jouida, Saoussen Krichen, Walid Klibi. 2017. Coalition-formation problem for sourcing contract design in supply networks. European Journal of Operational Research 257:2, 539-558. [CrossRef] 8. ChristopherMartin Martin Christopher m.g.christopher@cranfield.ac.uk HolwegMatthias Matthias Holweg matthias.Holweg@sbs.ox.ac.uk School of Management, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK Said Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK . 2017. Supply chain 2.0 revisited: a framework for managing volatility-induced risk in the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:1, 2-17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 9. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0358-4211 Addo-TenkorangRichard Richard Addo-Tenkorang raddotenkorang@yahoo.com Richard Addo-Tenkorang is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Industrial Engineering Management Unit – Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Finland and currently a Lecturer in Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering at the BIUST. His research interests are in the area of ERP, SCM, IT system-solutions and concurrent engineering for new/complex product development, as well as logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) projects. HeloPetri T. Petri T. Helo petri.helo@uva.fi Petri T. Helo is a Research Professor and the Head of the Networked Value Systems (NeVS) Research Group, Faculty of Technology, Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Finland. His research addresses the management of logistics processes in supply demand networks, which take place in electronics, machine building and food industries. Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland College of Engineering and Technology, Botswana International University of Science and Technology (BIUST), Palapye, Botswana . 2017. Analysis of enterprise supply chain communication networks in engineering product development. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:1, 47-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10.

Abubakar Ali Dublin Institute of Technology Dublin Ireland Amr Mahfouz Dublin Institute of

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

Technology Dublin Ireland Amr Arisha Dublin Institute of Technology Dublin Ireland . 2017. Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic

literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

11. Alexander Kharlamov, Luís Miguel D. F. Ferreira, Janet GodsellData-Driven SKU Differentiation Framework for Supply Chain Management 127-138. [CrossRef]

12. Morgane M.C. Fritz, Josef-Peter Schöggl, Rupert J. Baumgartner. 2017. Selected sustainability aspects for supply chain data exchange: Towards a supply chain-wide sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 141, 587-607. [CrossRef]

13. Omera Khan, Terje Stolte, Alessandro Creazza, Zaza Nadja Lee Hansen. 2016. Integrating product design

into the supply chain. Cogent Engineering

14. RogersHelen Helen Rogers Helen Rogers is a Professor of International Business at the Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Germany. Her current research interests include developing business models for additive manufacturing technologies and understanding their effects on global supply chains and negotiating procurement contracts. She has co-authored international conference papers, book chapters and journal papers primarily on international business and global supply chain-related topics. She is an Editorial Board Member of the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, the International Journal of Logistics and the Journal of Strategic Contracting & Negotiation. She is also a Co-organizer of the International Symposium on Logistics. BariczNorbert Norbert Baricz Norbert Baricz is a Research and Teaching Assistant at the Business Faculty of the Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Germany. His current research projects study the impact of innovative technologies on the supply chain configurations and business models of the future, in particular the changes brought on by advancements in additive manufacturing, automation and the internet of things. Prior to joining the International Management Department, he worked as a Global Business Process Administrator for one of the largest consumer electronics producers in the world. PawarKulwant S. Kulwant S. Pawar Professor Kulwant S. Pawar holds a Chair in Operations Management at the University of Nottingham UK and China and is the Director of the Centre for Concurrent Enterprise. He has published over 300 papers, including articles in leading international supply chain-related journals. He was an Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Logistics: Research & Application (2002-2007) and is a member of editorial boards of several journals. Professor Pawar has been involved in more than 30 funded research projects and has coordinated and managed a number of national, European and international projects and networks. He is the Founder and the Chairman of the International Symposium on Logistics, and a co-organizer of the International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE). He sits on several international professional committees, boards and is an expert reviewer, evaluator and consultant to the European Commission. Business Faculty, Technische Hochschule Nürnberg, Nurnberg, Germany Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK . 2016. 3D printing services: classification, supply chain implications and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:10, 886-907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. RileyJason M. Jason M. Riley KleinRichard Richard Klein MillerJanis Janis Miller SridharanV. V. Sridharan Department of Marketing and Management, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Department of Information Systems, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA Department of Management, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA . 2016. How internal integration, information sharing, and training affect supply chain risk management capabilities. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:10, 953-980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

16.

Sunil Luthra, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Lei Xu, Ali Diabat. 2016. Using AHP to evaluate barriers in adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 181, 342-349. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

17. Irène Kilubi. 2016. The strategies of supply chain risk management – a synthesis and classification. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19:6, 604-629. [CrossRef]

18. Assilah Agigi, Wesley Niemann, Theuns Kotzé. 2016. Supply chain design approaches for supply chain resilience: A qualitative study of South African fast-moving consumer goods grocery manufacturers.

Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management

19. SimangunsongElliot Elliot Simangunsong Dr Elliot Simangunsong is a Lecturer and the Head of Quality Management at the Prasetiya Mulya Business School in Jakarta, Indonesia. From 2010 to 2012, he also held the role of a Chairman of the Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management at the Business School. He completed his PhD at the Lancaster University in the UK in 2010; and his skills and expertise include: purchasing and supply chain management, logistics and distribution management, operations management, service quality management, business process management, and statistics for business. HendryLinda C. Linda C. Hendry Linda C. Hendry is a Professor of Operations Management at the Lancaster University Management School, UK. Her research interests includes: manufacturing strategy, planning and control for product customisation contexts, process improvement approaches, such as Six Sigma, and global supply chain management, including sustainable sourcing. Linda is a Member of the European Operations Management Association (and was on the Board as a Member of the Finance Team from 2011 to 2014) and a Member of The Institute of Operations Management. She has published extensively in a wide variety of journals, including those that focus on Operations Management, Production and Operational Research. StevensonMark Mark Stevenson Mark Stevenson is a Professor of Operations Management at the Lancaster University Management School (LUMS). His main research interests are in supply chain management and production planning in low-volume/high-variety manufacturing companies. Mark has published in a number of journals, including: International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Production Economics, Production and Operations Management, and Production Planning and Control. He regularly attends the Production and Operations Management Society (POMS) conference, the conference of the European Operations Management Association (EurOMA), and the International Working Seminar on Production Economics. Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management, Prasetiya Mulya Business School, Jakarta, Indonesia Department of Management Science, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK . 2016. Managing supply chain uncertainty with emerging ethical issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36:10, 1272-1307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

20. PapertMarcel Marcel Papert Marcel Papert (Dipl. Wi.-Ing.) is a PhD Candidate in SCM at the University of Bamberg, Germany. He received his Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Degree in Economics and Engineering from the Dresden University of Technology (TU Dresden). His research focusses on the implementation of Auto-ID-based services (Internet of Things services) in SCM, business ecosystems and business models. He is also a Research Assistant at the Research Center for Business Models in the Digital World at the University of Bamberg. RimplerPatrick Patrick Rimpler Patrick Rimpler (MSc) is a Consultant at Miebach Consulting – the Supply Chain Engineers and will be a Phd Candidate in Business Administration. His research focusses on the internationalization of small- and medium-sized enterprises and its success factors. PflaumAlexander Alexander Pflaum Alexander Pflaum (Dr rer. pol.-Dipl.-Ing., Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, FAU) is the Director of the Fraunhofer Center for Supply Chain Services (SCS) in Nuremberg and Bamberg. Additionally he is responsible for the affiliated Center for Smart Objects. In the past he has given lectures on technologies in logistics as well as on

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

technology and innovation management at FAU. Since 2011, he has been a Full Professor for Business Administration, especially Supply Chain Management, at the Otto-Friedrich-University in Bamberg. In 2014, he founded the Bamberg Competence Center for Business Models in the Digital World together with other faculty members. In parallel to his scientific career, he conducted numerous development and consulting projects for retail, industry, public institutions and logistics service providers. The focus of his research work is on the adoption of smart object technologies such as radio frequency identification, wireless sensor networks and real-time location systems within the logistics industry. Currently he is working on service engineering models and methods for smart object-based supply chain information services. He works with industry, speaks at international conferences, is involved in the creation of international standards and has published his work in peer-reviewed journals. Department of Supply Chain Management, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany Department of Supply Chain Processes, Miebach Consulting GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany . 2016. Enhancing supply chain visibility in a pharmaceutical supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:9, 859-884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 21. C-9050-2011 JonssonPatrik Patrik Jonsson MattssonStig-Arne Stig-Arne Mattsson Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden . 2016. Advanced material planning performance: a contextual examination and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:9, 836-858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 22. BühlerAndreas Andreas Bühler a.buehler@wiedmann-winz.com Andreas Bühler is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Supply Chain Management Group, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management. He is Managing Director at Wiedmann & Winz GmbH, a logistics service provider focusing on transport and contract logistics in the industrial and consumer goods sector. With more than 10 years of professional experience in logistics and operations management and strategy consulting, his research interests focus on performance measurement issues in logistics services. WallenburgCarl Marcus Carl Marcus Wallenburg wallenburg@whu.edu Carl Marcus Wallenburg is a Professor of Supply Chain Management and holds the Kühne Foundation Chair of Logistics and Service Management of WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany. His research covers a broad field of logistics and SCM with special focuses on performance management, logistics services and 3PL, different supply chain matters (e.g. risk management and logistics innovation) and how they are influenced by vertical and horizontal relationships in the supply chain. Dr Wallenburg frequently speaks at conferences and company meetings and has published six books, more than 20 management studies, including CSCMP’s Global Perspectives on Germany and one Boston Consulting Group Focus Report, and over 90 articles. He is European editor of the Journal of Business Logistics, and his research has been awarded with the German Logistics Award 2004 and five Emerald Outstanding Paper Awards. WielandAndreas Andreas Wieland awi.om@cbs.dk Andreas Wieland is an Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management at the Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School. His current research interests include supply chain risk management, resilience and international logistics strategies. His articles have appeared in journals such as International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. He is the recipient of several awards, including three Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence, the Harry Boer Highly Commended Award and an Award for Outstanding Achievements in Teaching. He was selected as Reviewer of the Year for 2015 for the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. He is also the editor of the blog scmresearch.org. Supply Chain Management Group, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Düsseldorf, Germany Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark . 2016. Accounting for external

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

turbulence of logistics organizations via performance measurement systems. Supply Chain Management:

An International Journal 21:6, 694-708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Heidi C. Dreyer, Jan O. Strandhagen, Hans-Henrik Hvolby, Anita Romsdal, Erlend Alfnes. 2016. Supply chain strategies for speciality foods: a Norwegian case study. Production Planning & Control 27:11, 878-893. [CrossRef]

24. Andrew Manikas, James Kroes. 2016. Improved forward buying of commodity materials. International Journal of Production Research 54:15, 4568-4583. [CrossRef]

25. Corrado Cerruti Department of Management and Law, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy Carlos Mena Department of Supply Chain Management, Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan United States Heather Skipworth School of Management, University of Cranfield, Cranfield, UK Ernesto Tavoletti Department of Political Science, Communication and International Relations, University of Macerata, Macerata, Italy . 2016. Characterizing agile supply partnerships in the fashion industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36:8, 923-947. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

26. Mauro Falasca, John F. Kros. 2016. Success factors and performance outcomes of healthcare industrial vending systems: An empirical analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change . [CrossRef]

27. Sebastian Forkmann, Stephan C. Henneberg, Peter Naudé, Maciej Mitrega. 2016. Supplier relationship management capability: a qualification and extension. Industrial Marketing Management 57, 185-200. [CrossRef]

28. Caitlin N. Benton, Madeline Napier, M. Ali Ülkü. 2016. On Supply Chain Integration to Free Trade Zones: The Case of the United States of America. Global Business Review 17:4, 779-789. [CrossRef]

29. Ville Hallavo Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland Jarmo Toivanen Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland Markku Kuula Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland Antero Putkiranta Department of Industrial Economics, Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland . 2016. Impact of ownership change on plant practice-performance dynamics. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:5, 1363-1380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

30. Irene Kilubi Faculty of General Business Administration, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany . 2016. Investigating current paradigms in supply chain risk management – a bibliometric study. Business Process Management Journal 22:4, 662-692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

31. Helen Rogers, Mohit Srivastava, Kulwant S Pawar, Janat Shah. 2016. Supply chain risk management in India – practical insights. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19:4, 278-299. [CrossRef]

32. Fahian Huq, Kulwant S. Pawar, Helen Rogers. 2016. Supply chain configuration conundrum: how does the pharmaceutical industry mitigate disturbance factors?. Production Planning & Control 1-15. [CrossRef]

33. K. T. Shibin, Angappa Gunasekaran, Thanos Papadopoulos, Rameshwar Dubey, Manju Singh, Samuel Fosso Wamba. 2016. Enablers and Barriers of Flexible Green Supply Chain Management: A Total Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 17:2, 171-188. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

vulnerability of shippers. The International Journal of Logistics Management 27:1, 122-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. Hamid Jafari Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden Anna Nyberg Department of Marketing and Strategy, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden Per Hilletofth Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden . 2016. Postponement and logistics flexibility in retailing: a multiple case study from Sweden. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116:3, 445-465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

36. Seyoum Eshetu Birkie Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy . 2016. Operational resilience and lean: in search of synergies and trade-offs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:2, 185-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

37. Fábio Lotti Oliva. 2016. A maturity model for enterprise risk management. International Journal of Production Economics 173, 66-79. [CrossRef]

38. Graham C. Stevens GSC Consulting, Ludlow, UK Mark Johnson Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK . 2016. Integrating the Supply Chain … 25 years on. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:1, 19-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Patrik Jonsson Department of technology management and economics, Division of logistics and transportation, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Jan Holmström Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland . 2016. Future of supply chain planning: closing the gaps between practice and promise. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:1, 62-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

40. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran. 2016. The sustainable humanitarian supply chain design:

agility, adaptability and alignment. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19:1, 62-82. [CrossRef]

41. Masoud Kamalahmadi, Mahour Mellat Parast. 2016. A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics 171, 116-133. [CrossRef]

42. Erik Hofmann, Stephan Knébel. 2016. Supply Chain Differentiation: Background, Concept and Examples. Journal of Service Science and Management 09:02, 160-174. [CrossRef]

43. Patrik Spalt, Thomas Bauernhansl. 2016. A Framework for Integration of Additive Manufacturing Technologies in Production Networks. Procedia CIRP 57, 716-721. [CrossRef]

44. Roberto Dominguez, Salvatore Cannella, Jose M. Framinan. 2015. The impact of the supply chain structure on bullwhip effect. Applied Mathematical Modelling 39:23-24, 7309-7325. [CrossRef]

45. Woojung Chang College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA Alexander E. Ellinger Culverhouse College of Commerce, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA Jennifer Blackhurst College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA . 2015. A contextual approach to supply chain risk mitigation. The International Journal of Logistics Management 26:3, 642-656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

46. Alexander E. Ellinger, Haozhe Chen, Yu Tian, Craig Armstrong. 2015. Learning orientation, integration, and supply chain risk management in Chinese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 18:6, 476-493. [CrossRef]

47. M. Irhas Effendi, Titik Kusmantini. 2015. The Moderating Effect of Contingency Variables on the Relationship between Formal Strategic Planning and Company Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 211, 1132-1141. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

48. Roberto Dominguez, Salvatore Cannella, Jose M. FraminanOn the evaluation of arborescent supply chains with inventory errors 708-713. [CrossRef]

49. Benjamin R. Tukamuhabwa, Mark Stevenson, Jerry Busby, Marta Zorzini. 2015. Supply chain resilience:

definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research 53:18, 5592-5623. [CrossRef]

50. Hamid Jafari Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden . 2015. Logistics flexibility: a systematic review. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 64:7, 947-970. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

51. Richard Oloruntoba Newcastle Business School, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. Gyöngyi Kovács HUMLOG Institute, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland . 2015. A commentary on agility in humanitarian aid supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:6, 708-716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

52. Peter Trkman Department of Information and Logistics Management, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Marko Budler Department of Information and Logistics Management, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Aleš Groznik Department of Information and Logistics Management, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, 2015. A business model approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management:

An International Journal 20:6, 587-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

53. Yao 'Henry' Jin Farmer School of Business, Department of Management, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA Brent D. Williams Department of Supply Chain Management, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA Matthew A. Waller Department of Supply Chain Management, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA Adriana Rossiter Hofer Department of Supply Chain Management, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA . 2015. Masking the bullwhip effect in retail: the influence of data aggregation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:8, 814-830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

54. Gavin Meschnig SCM, WHU, Vallendar, Germany Lutz Kaufmann SCM, WHU, Vallendar, Germany . 2015. Consensus on supplier selection objectives in cross-functional sourcing teams. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:8, 774-793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

55. Professor Brian Fynes and Professor Paul Coughlan Louis Brennan School of Business, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Kasra Ferdows McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Janet Godsell Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Ruggero Golini Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Dalmine, Italy Richard Keegan Manager of Competitiveness Department, Enterprise Ireland and Business School, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Steffen Kinkel ILIN Institute for Learning and Innovation in Networks, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany Jagjit Singh Srai Centre for International Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Margaret Taylor School of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK . 2015. Manufacturing in the world: where next?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:9, 1253-1274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

56. Mats Abrahamsson, Martin Christopher, Bo-Inge Stensson. 2015. Mastering Supply Chain Management in an Era of Uncertainty at SKF. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 34:6, 6-17. [CrossRef]

57. Cécile L'Hermitte Australian Maritime College, National Centre for Ports and Shipping, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia Marcus Bowles Australian Maritime College, National Centre for Ports

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

and Shipping, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia Peter Tatham Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Ben Brooks Australian Maritime College, National Centre for Ports and Shipping, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia . 2015. An integrated approach to agility in humanitarian logistics. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 5:2, 209-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Atul Kumar Tiwari Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India Anunay Tiwari School of Management Studies, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, India Cherian Samuel Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India . 2015. Supply chain flexibility: a comprehensive review. Management Research Review 38:7, 767-792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Jeremy Jie Ming Kwok, Dong-Yup Lee. 2015. Coopetitive Supply Chain Relationship Model: Application to the Smartphone Manufacturing Network. PLOS ONE 10:7, e0132844. [CrossRef]

60. Integration of ISO 31000:2009 and Supply Chain Risk Management 69-90. [CrossRef]

61. Taravatsadat Nehzati, Heidi C. Dreyer, Jan Ola Strandhagen. 2015. Production network flexibility: case study of Norwegian diary production network. Advances in Manufacturing 3:2, 151-165. [CrossRef]

62. Dominik Eckstein, Matthias Goellner, Constantin Blome, Michael Henke. 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]

63. Yuming Xiao. 2015. Flexibility measure analysis of supply chain. International Journal of Production Research 53:10, 3161-3174. [CrossRef]

64. Robert Blackburn, Kristina Lurz, Benjamin Priese, Rainer Göb, Inga-Lena Darkow. 2015. A predictive analytics approach for demand forecasting in the process industry. International Transactions in Operational Research 22:3, 407-428. [CrossRef]

65. Daniel R Eyers Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Andrew T Potter Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK . 2015. E-commerce channels for additive manufacturing: an exploratory study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:3, 390-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

66. Lutz Kaufmann SCM, WHU, Vallendar, Germany Julia Gaeckler Department of International Business and Supply Management, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany . 2015. On the relationship between purchasing integration and purchasing decision-making speed. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:3, 214-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

67. Professor Maria Jesus Saenz Dr Xenophon Koufteros Christian F. Durach Department of Logistics, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Andreas Wieland Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jose A.D. Machuca Department of Financial Economics and Operations Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain . 2015. Antecedents and dimensions of supply chain robustness: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:1/2, 118-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

68. Martin Tanco Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay Daniel Jurburg Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay Matias Escuder Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay . 2015. Main difficulties hindering supply chain performance: an exploratory analysis at Uruguayan SMEs. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

69. Dimitris Mourtzis, Nikolaos Papakostas, Dimitris Mavrikios, Sotiris Makris, Kosmas Alexopoulos. 2015. The role of simulation in digital manufacturing: applications and outlook. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 28:1, 3-24. [CrossRef]

70. Rohani Jangga, Norlina M. Ali, Mazlina Ismail, Norshahniza Sahari. 2015. Effect of Environmental Uncertainty and Supply Chain Flexibility Towards Supply Chain Innovation: An exploratory Study. Procedia Economics and Finance 31, 262-268. [CrossRef]

71. Antonio Márcio T. Thomé, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Sílvio R.I. Pires, Paula Ceryno, Katja Klingebiel. 2014. A multi-tier study on supply chain flexibility in the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 158, 91-105. [CrossRef]

72. Anu Bask, Hilkka Merisalo-Rantanen, Tuure Tuunanen. 2014. Developing a Modular Service Architecture for E-store Supply Chains: The Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise Perspective. Service Science 6:4, 251-273. [CrossRef]

73. Salvatore Cannella, Jose M. Framinan, Ana Barbosa-Póvoa. 2014. An IT-enabled supply chain model: a simulation study. International Journal of Systems Science 45:11, 2327-2341. [CrossRef]

74. Tillmann Böhme, Eric Deakins, Matthew Pepper, Denis Towill. 2014. Systems engineering effective supply chain innovations. International Journal of Production Research 52:21, 6518-6537. [CrossRef]

75. Christian Busse, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2014. Firm-level innovation management at logistics service providers: an exploration. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17:5, 396-419. [CrossRef]

76. Carla Roberta Pereira Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil Martin Christopher Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Andrea Lago Da Silva Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil . 2014. Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of procurement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 626-642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

77. Nils-Ole Hohenstein Chair of Supply Chain Management, Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen- Nuremberg, Germany Edda Feisel Chair of Supply Chain Management, Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Evi Hartmann Chair of Supply Chain Management, Friedrich- Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany . 2014. Human resource management issues in supply chain management research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:6, 434-463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

78. Roberto Dominguez, Salvatore Cannella, Jose M. Framinan. 2014. On bullwhip-limiting strategies in divergent supply chain networks. Computers & Industrial Engineering 73, 85-95. [CrossRef]

79. Jan Holmström Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Aalto, Finland Jouni Partanen Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, Aalto, Finland . 2014. Digital manufacturing-driven transformations of service supply chains for complex products. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:4, 421-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

80. Bernadette Förster EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany Jonas Keller EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany Heiko A. von der Gracht EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany Inga-Lena Darkow Department of Business Studies and Economics, University Bremen, Bremen, Germany . 2014. Delphi-based strategic issue management: crafting consumer goods supply chain strategy. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:5, 373-391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

81. Sajad Fayezi School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Ambika Zutshi School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Andrew O’Loughlin School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia . 2014. Developing an analytical framework to assess the uncertainty and flexibility mismatches across the supply chain. Business Process Management Journal 20:3, 362-391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

82. Terry Sloan, Anneke Fitzgerald, Kathryn J. Hayes, Zoe Radnor, Suzanne Robinson and Amrik Sohal Tillmann Böhme Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Sharon Williams Logistics and Operations Management, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK Paul Childerhouse College of Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Eric Deakins Department of Management Systems, Waikato Management School, Hamilton, New Zealand Denis Towill Logistics and Operations Management, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK . 2014. Squaring the circle of healthcare supplies. Journal of Health Organization and Management 28:2, 247-265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

83. Lâm Laurent Lim, Gülgün Alpan, Bernard Penz. 2014. Reconciling sales and operations management with distant suppliers in the automotive industry: A simulation approach. International Journal of Production Economics 151, 20-36. [CrossRef]

84. Roberto Dominguez, Jose M. Framinan, Salvatore Cannella. 2014. Serial vs. divergent supply chain networks: a comparative analysis of the bullwhip effect. International Journal of Production Research 52:7, 2194-2210. [CrossRef]

85. Christopher J. Savage, Logan Fransman, Andrew K. Jenkins, Colin G. Bamford. 2014. Developing Walvis Bay Port into a logistics gateway for southern Africa: Issues, challenges and the potential implications for

Namibia’s future. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management

86. Salvatore Cannella, Jalal Ashayeri, Pablo A. Miranda, Manfredi Bruccoleri. 2014. Current economic downturn and supply chain: the significance of demand and inventory smoothing. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 27:3, 201-212. [CrossRef]

87. Stephan M. Wagner, Kristoph K.R. Ullrich, Sandra Transchel. 2014. The game plan for aligning the organization. Business Horizons 57:2, 189-201. [CrossRef]

88. Nathalie Merminod CRET-LOG, Aix-Marseille Université, Aix-en-Provence, France Jean Nollet HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada Gilles Pache CRET-LOG, Aix-Marseille Université, Aix-en-Provence, France . 2014. Streamlining humanitarian and peacekeeping supply chains. Society and Business Review 9:1, 4-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

89. Katsuki Aoki, Thomas Staeblein, Takahiro Tomino. 2014. Monozukuri capability to address product variety: A comparison between Japanese and German automotive makers. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 373-384. [CrossRef]

90. Johnna Montgomerie, Samuel Roscoe. 2013. Owning the consumer—Getting to the core of the Apple business model. Accounting Forum 37:4, 290-299. [CrossRef]

91. Kunal Ganguly. 2013. A case study approach for understanding inbound supply risk assessment. DECISION 40:1-2, 85-97. [CrossRef]

92. Christos Braziotis Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Michael Bourlakis Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK Helen Rogers Department of Supply Chain Management, Erlangen Nuremberg University, Nuremberg, Germany James Tannock Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK . 2013. Supply chains and supply networks: distinctions and overlaps. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:6, 644-652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

93.

Rohit Kr. Singh, P. Acharya. 2013. Supply Chain Flexibility: A Frame Work of Research Dimensions. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 14:3, 157-166. [CrossRef]

94.

Gottfried Seebacher, Herwig Winkler. 2013. A Citation Analysis of the Research on Manufacturing and Supply Chain Flexibility. International Journal of Production Research 51:11, 3415-3427. [CrossRef]

95.

Juuso Töyli, Harri Lorentz, and Lauri Ojala Andreas Wieland Kühne Foundation Center for International Logistics Networks, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Carl Marcus Wallenburg Department of Supply Chain Management, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany . 2013. The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:4, 300-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

96.

Allan SheppardGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Peter TathamGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Ron FisherGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Rodney GappGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2013. Humanitarian logistics: enhancing the engagement of local populations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 3:1, 22-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

97.

Heiko A. von der Gracht, Christopher Stillings. 2013. An innovation-focused scenario process — A case from the materials producing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80:4, 599-610. [CrossRef]

98.

Noel JohnsonUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Dominic ElliottUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Paul DrakeUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3, 324-336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

99.

Rudolf Leuschner, Dale S. Rogers, François F. Charvet. 2013. A Meta-Analysis of Supply Chain Integration and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management 49:2, 34-57. [CrossRef]

100.

Keenan D. Yoho, Sebastiaan J. H. Rietjens, Peter TathamPeter TathamDepartment of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2013. An exploration of trust and shared values in UK defence supply networks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:2, 148-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

101.

Keenan D. Yoho, Sebastiaan J. H. Rietjens, Peter TathamKeenan D. YohoNaval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA Sebastiaan RietjensFaculty of Military Sciences, Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, The Netherlands Peter TathamGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2013. Defence logistics: an important research field in need of researchers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:2, 80-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

102.

Riccardo Manzini, Riccardo Accorsi. 2013. The new conceptual framework for food supply chain assessment. Journal of Food Engineering 115:2, 251-263. [CrossRef]

103.

Sihn Wilfried, Gommel Henrik, Florian Markus. 2013. Evaluation of a configuration model for the design of adaptable logistics chains in the railway vehicle manufacturing industry. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46:9, 81-86. [CrossRef]

104.

S Cannella, A P Barbosa-Póvoa, J M Framinan, S Relvas. 2013. Metrics for bullwhip effect analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society 64:1, 1-16. [CrossRef]

105.

Georg Heinecke, Jonathan Köber, Raffaello Lepratti, Steffen Lamparter, Andreas KunzEvent-Driven Order Rescheduling Model for Just-In-Sequence Deliveries to a Mixed-Model Assembly Line 326-333. [CrossRef]

106.

Stanislaw StrzelczakIdiosyncratic Behavior of Globally Distributed Manufacturing 487-494. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)

107. Andreas WielandDepartment of Technology and Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Carl Marcus WallenburgChair of Logistics and Services Management, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany. 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42:10, 887-905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supplemental Material]

108. Peter TathamDepartment of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2012. Some reflections on the breadth and depth of the field of humanitarian logistics and supply chain management. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 2:2, 108-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

109. Gyöngyi Kovács, Peter Tatham, Paul D. Larson. 2012. What Skills Are Needed to be a Humanitarian Logistician?. Journal of Business Logistics 33:3, 245-258. [CrossRef]

110. Anna Corinna CaglianoDepartment of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Alberto De MarcoDepartment of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Carlo RafeleDepartment of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Marco AreseDepartment of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. 2012. A decision‐making approach for investigating the potential effects of near sourcing on supply chain. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 5:2, 100-120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

111. Claudia ColicchiaLIUC, Logistics Research Centre, Carlo Cattaneo University, Castellanza, Italy Fernanda StrozziLIUC, Logistics Research Centre, Carlo Cattaneo University, Castellanza, Italy. 2012. Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:4, 403-418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

112. Yong LinBusiness School, University of Greenwich, London, UK Shihua MaSchool of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China Li ZhouBusiness School, University of Greenwich, London, UK. 2012. Manufacturing strategies for time based competitive advantages. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:5, 729-747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

113. Andrew J. ThomasNewport Business School, University of Wales Newport, Newport, UK Paul ByardEngineering Employers Federation, Bridgend, UK Roger EvansSchaeffler Bearing Company, Llanelli, UK. 2012. Identifying the UK's manufacturing challenges as a benchmark for future growth. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23:2, 142-156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

114. Yongmei Bentley. 2011. Managers’ perspectives of logistics and supply chain changes during the recent economic downturn. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 14:6, 427-441. [CrossRef]

115. MATTHIAS HOLWEG. 2011. WHY THERE IS NO “INSIGNIFICANCE” FOR A RELEVANT QUESTION. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47:4, 19-20. [CrossRef]

116. C. Engelhardt-Nowitzki, N. Kryvinska, C. StraussStrategic Demands on Information Services in Uncertain Businesses: A Layer-Based Framework from a Value Network Perspective 131-136. [CrossRef]

117. Emna CherifOnline Real Estate Demand Chain Integration 151-187. [CrossRef]

118. Fawzy Soliman, Josiah EdmondOrganisational Sustainability Role in Supply Chain Best Practices 287-301. [CrossRef]

119. Y. RamakrishnaSupply Chain Management: 141-151. [CrossRef]