Supply Chain 2.0 Managing Supply Chains in The Era of Turbulence

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:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101439
Downloaded by JNKPING UNIVERSITY At 03:33 19 April 2017 (PT)
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
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.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
Supply
Supply Chain 2.0: managing Chain 2.0
supply chains in the era
of turbulence
63
Martin Christopher
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK, and
Matthias Holweg
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 International Journal of Physical
has helped many firms to gain a competitive edge. What we often forget is that SCM as Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 41 No. 1, 2011
an idea is relatively new it first emerged in an early form less than 30 years ago[1] pp. 63-82
but was quickly picked up by academics, consultants, and practitioners and amended q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
and re-shaped to reflect the insights gained through the experience of implementation. DOI 10.1108/09600031111101439
IJPDLM Since then, SCM has quite literally transformed our thinking about how markets may
41,1 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
64 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
many goods and services slashed, requiring considerable flexibility to downscale Supply
capacity in many sectors. Chain 2.0
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 65
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.
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.
66
41,1
Table I.
parameters
IJPDLM
Volatility in key business

US$ to GBP UK inter bank UK clearing Crude Oil-Brent Gold Bullion LME-Copper, MB-steel Baltic Dry
(WMR) three months banks base current month FOB LBM U$/troy grade A three CR coil Index, in
exchange rate () middle rate (%) rate (%) U$/barrel ounce month /MT $/MT US$
Period Since 1970 Since 1975 Since 1970 Since 1970 Since 1970 Since 1970 Since 1989 Since 1985
Minimum 1.07 3.44 2.00 1.80 34.87 403.50 250.00 568.00
Maximum 2.62 18.47 17.00 123.62 957.80 4,350.94 1,205.00 11,465.00
Mean 1.81 8.78 8.57 22.77 341.21 1,288.89 456.31 2,099.14
SD 0.33 3.66 3.51 18.50 173.63 782.95 182.94 1,872.65
CoV 0.18 0.42 0.41 0.81 0.51 0.61 0.40 0.89
Compound
average
growth rate 2 0.36 20.68 2 0.74 24.09 23.74 2.11 1.30 20.16
Notes: FOB Free on board; LBM London Bullion Market
In order to illustrate the degree to which overall turbulence in our business environment Supply
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
Chain 2.0
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 67
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
Type Parameter Source Availability of data
Financial EUR/GBP (WMR&DS) Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970

exchange rate
Financial USD/GBP (WMR&DS) Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970
exchange rate
Financial UK clearing banks base rate Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970
middle rate
Raw materials Crude Oil-Brent FOB U$/BBL Energy Information Since 1970
Administration (EIA)
Raw materials Gold Bullion LBM U$/troy Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970
ounce
Raw materials LME-Copper, grade A three Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970
month /MT
Stock market VIX Chicago Board Options Chicago Board Options Since 1986
Exchange Market Volatility Exchange Table II.
Index Key business parameters
Shipping cost Baltic Dry Index Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1985 considered
IJPDLM 0.700
41,1 0.600
0.500
0.400
68
0.300
0.200
0.100
*1 *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7
0.000
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min-max CoV interval Average CoV
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; alist of constituents: EUR/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate;
Figure 1. USD/GBP (WMR&DS) exchange rate; Crude Oil-Brent FOB U$/BBL; Gold Bullion LBM
The Supply Chain U$/troy ounce; LME-Copper, grade A three month /MT; UK clearing banks base rate -middle rate;
Volatility Index, 1970-2010 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
conditions, this will place any firm at a competitive disadvantage: if the supply chain is Supply
stable, the resources spent on creating that resilience are wasted. As Christopher Chain 2.0
and Peck (2004) state this [. . .] 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 69
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.
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,
IJPDLM to a stable supply chain that managed seamless flows across tiers in the network. This
41,1 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
70 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 Embrace volatility and develop

variability and thus cost to compete superior ability to adapt
Decision time horizon Short-term, quarterly results Long-term viability, while
maintaining positive cash flow
View on turbulence Bad, as it causes instability and cost Inevitable, hence the need to pre-
empt it by creating adaptable
Table III. structures
Efficient versus Approach to dealing with Use SIX SIGMA and other tools to Use tools to increase flexibility
adaptable supply chain turbulence eradicate it where possible bandwidth to cope
Structural flexibility Supply
Low High Chain 2.0
High
Stable Adaptable
supply supply
chain chain 71
Dynamic
flexibility
Efficient
supply
chain
Figure 2.
Low Moving from dynamic to
structural flexibility
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 Gambles 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.
IJPDLM .
Postponement, by holding the base materials, sub-assemblies, and modules as
41,1 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
72 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;
i.e. manufacturing in countries (still low cost) that are nearer to their markets. Supply
This enables shorter lead-times and a greater ability to late configure products. Chain 2.0
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 73
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.
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)
IJPDLM is by far the greatest impediment to firms making better informed supply chain decisions
41,1 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
74 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
single-point forecasts, yet simply more of them. Overall, these models assume a Supply
blanket risk factor (in NPV, the overall discount factor applied to future Chain 2.0
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 75
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 todays 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.
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.
IJPDLM
41,1
As uncertainty increases
in the future, the value of
flexibility will increase!
Flexible route
76
Return on investment
Figure 3. Traditional route

The flexible route looks
Profit
less attractive initially
under the assumption of Loss

stable conditions but
structural flexibility shifts
the exposure to risk as
uncertainty increases Now Future
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
view, is the main reason why the real options theory has not caught on in SCM: it is Supply
simply too complex and too limiting in its assumptions. Chain 2.0
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 77
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 DCFs 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.
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 UKs 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
IJPDLM factors as the security arrangements at airports where the length of time taken to
41,1 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
78 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
rationalisation. Keeping control of variety is a continuing challenge with new product Supply
launches and promotions increasing every year. There are more and more niche Chain 2.0
segments, e.g. vodka with different flavours, different price points, and positioning
strategies. About half WDFs 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 79
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?
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 Toyotas
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
Toyotas 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 Toyotas 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. Toyotas 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.
IJPDLM Outlook
41,1 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
80 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 Allens 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
Political Economy, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 637-54.
Chain 2.0
Burnetas, A. and Ritchken, P.H. (2005), Option pricing with downward-sloping demand curves:
the case of supply chain options, Management Science, Vol. 51, pp. 566-80.
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), Dells supply chain DNA, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 20-4.
Holweg, M., Disney, S., Holmstrom, J. and Smaros, 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 Dells 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
Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 124-34.
Marks, M., Holloway, C., Holloway, C., Lee, H., Hoyt, D.W. and Silverman, A. (2007), Crocs:
Revolutionizing an Industrys Supply Chain Model for Competitive Advantage by Case
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.
IJPDLM Zinn, W., Levy, M. and Bowersox, D. (1989), Measuring the effect of inventory
centralization/decentralization on aggregate safety stock: the Square Root Law
41,1 revisited, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Further reading
Oliver, R.K. and Webber, M.D. (1982), Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with
82 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
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 14:2. .
[Abstract] [PDF]
2. Peter Tatham Griffith University Gold Coast Australia Yong Wu Griffith University Gold Coast Australia
Gyngyi Kovcs 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 28:2. . [Abstract] [PDF]
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
Kentuckys 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
Holsapples 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
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 States 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
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 22:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
11. Alexander Kharlamov, Lus Miguel D. F. Ferreira, Janet GodsellData-Driven SKU Differentiation
Framework for Supply Chain Management 127-138. [CrossRef]
12. Morgane M.C. Fritz, Josef-Peter Schggl, 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 3:1. . [CrossRef]
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 Nrnberg, 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]
17. Irne 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 Kotz. 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 10:1. . [CrossRef]
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-Nrnberg, 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
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. BhlerAndreas Andreas Bhler a.buehler@wiedmann-winz.com Andreas Bhler 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 Khne 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 CSCMPs 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, Dsseldorf, Germany Department of Operations
Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark . 2016. Accounting for external
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 Naud, 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 lk. 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.
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]
34. Alexander Knig Department of Logistics Management, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management,
Wallendar, Germany Stefan Spinler Department of Logistics Management, WHU - Otto Beisheim School
of Management, Wallendar, Germany . 2016. The effect of logistics outsourcing on the supply chain
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, Jnkping University, Jnkping,
Sweden Anna Nyberg Department of Marketing and Strategy, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm, Sweden Per Hilletofth Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Jnkping
University, Jnkping, 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. Fbio Lotti Oliva. 2016. A maturity model for enterprise risk management. International Journal of
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 Holmstrm 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 Knbel. 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]
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 Jnkping University, Jnkping, 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.
Gyngyi Kovcs 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. Ale Groznik Department of
Information and Logistics Management, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia. . 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, Universit 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. Ccile 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
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 Gb, 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]
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 Mrcio T. Thom, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Slvio 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-Pvoa. 2014. An IT-enabled supply chain model: a
simulation study. International Journal of Systems Science 45:11, 2327-2341. [CrossRef]

74. Tillmann Bhme, 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 So Carlos, So Carlos,
Brazil Martin Christopher Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Andrea
Lago Da Silva Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of So Carlos, So 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 Holmstrm 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 Frster EBS Business School, EBS Universitt fr Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany
Jonas Keller EBS Business School, EBS Universitt fr Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany
Heiko A. von der Gracht EBS Business School, EBS Universitt fr 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.
81. Sajad Fayezi School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Ambika
Zutshi School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Andrew
OLoughlin 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 Bhme 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.
83. Lm Laurent Lim, Glgn Alpan, Bernard Penz. 2014. Reconciling sales and operations management
with distant suppliers in the automotive industry: A simulation approach. International Journal of
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
Namibias future. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management 8:1. . [CrossRef]
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 Universit, Aix-en-Provence, France Jean Nollet HEC
Montral, Montral, Canada Gilles Pache CRET-LOG, Aix-Marseille Universit, Aix-en-Provence,
France . 2014. Streamlining humanitarian and peacekeeping supply chains. Society and Business Review
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
90. Johnna Montgomerie, Samuel Roscoe. 2013. Owning the consumerGetting 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
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 Tyli, Harri Lorentz, and Lauri Ojala Andreas Wieland Khne Foundation Center for
International Logistics Networks, Technische Universitt 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.
99. Rudolf Leuschner, Dale S. Rogers, Franois 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-Pvoa, 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 Kber, 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]
107. Andreas WielandDepartment of Technology and Management, Technische Universitt 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.
109. Gyngyi Kovcs, 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 decisionmaking 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]

Supply Chain 2.0 Managing Supply Chains in The Era of Turbulence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain 2.0 Managing Supply Chains in The Era of Turbulence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

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

Downloaded on: 19 April 2017, At: 03:33 (PT)

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

Supply chain management, as we know it

to meet the challenges of a turbulent business environment, we need structural

An increasingly global, complex, and uncertain world

The Supply Chain Volatility Index

Volatility in key business

environment is shifting, we have added an aggregate or meta-index of variation to the

Type Parameter Source Availability of data

Financial EUR/GBP (WMR&DS) Thomson Reuters Datastream Since 1970

Approaches for dealing with turbulence

Control: the traditional approach to SCM

The need to move from dynamic to structural flexibility

What exactly is structural flexibility?

Efficient supply chain Adaptable supply chain

Focus Establish control to reduce Embrace volatility and develop

Let us consider how HP, a long-established manufacturer of a range of electronic

of computer and printer products is out-sourced to contract manufacturers. The

How to value structural flexibility

Even though both centralised manufacturing and centralised distribution will

The cost accounting trap

input to the calculations. The resulting performance is then expressed as an

What is the financial value of a supply chain real option?

Figure 3. Traditional route

under the assumption of Loss

Managing supply chains under turbulence

Embrace volatility, do not fight it

Understand the nature and impact of turbulence

Challenge the economies of scale mindset

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

21. C-9050-2011 JonssonPatrik Patrik Jonsson MattssonStig-Arne Stig-Arne Mattsson Department of

Production Management 36:8, 923-947. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

simulation study. International Journal of Systems Science 45:11, 2327-2341. [CrossRef]

You might also like