Ericsson's Proactive Supply Chain

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
Ericsson's proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier
accident
Andreas Norrman Ulf Jansson
Downloaded by Wayne State University At 18:32 05 November 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Andreas Norrman Ulf Jansson, (2004),"Ericsson's proactive supply chain risk management approach after
a serious sub-supplier accident", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.
34 Iss 5 pp. 434 - 456
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545463
Downloaded on: 05 November 2015, At: 18:32 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25229 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Rao Tummala, Tobias Schoenherr, (2011),"Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk
Management Process (SCRMP)", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp.
474-483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111171165
Craig R. Carter, Dale S. Rogers, (2008),"A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 Iss
5 pp. 360-387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816
Larry C. Giunipero, Reham Aly Eltantawy, (2004),"Securing the upstream supply chain: a risk management
approach", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 Iss 9 pp.
698-713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030410567478
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Subscribers
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 Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
IJPDLM
34,5
434
Received July 2003
Revised February 2004
Accepted March 2004
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
Ericssons proactive supply chain

risk management approach after
a serious sub-supplier accident
Andreas Norrman
Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden, and
Ulf Jansson
Ericsson AB, Sweden, Core Unit Supply, Stockholm, Sweden

Keywords Supply chain management, Risk management, Business continuity, Insurance
Abstract Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is of growing importance, as the vulnerability
of supply chains increases. The main thrust of this article is to describe how Ericsson, after a fire at
a sub-supplier, with a huge impact on Ericsson, has implemented a new organization, and new
processes and tools for SCRM. The approach described tries to analyze, assess and manage risk
sources along the supply chain, partly by working close with suppliers but also by placing formal
requirements on them. This explorative study also indicates that insurance companies might be a
driving force for improved SCRM, as they now start to understand the vulnerability of modern
supply chains. The article concludes with a discussion of risk related to traditional logistics concepts
(time, cost, quality, agility and leanness) by arguing that supply chain risks should also be put into
the trade-off analysis when evaluating new logistics solutions not with the purpose to minimize
risks, however, but to find the efficient level of risk and prevention.
International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 34 No. 5, 2004
pp. 434-456
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600030410545463
Introduction
Background
In industry, especially those industries moving towards longer supply chains (e.g. due
to outsourcing) and facing increasingly uncertain demand as well as supply, the issue
of risk handling and risk sharing along the supply chain is an important topic. The
leaner and more integrated supply chains get, the more likely uncertainties, dynamics
and accidents in one link affect the other links in the chain. Hence, the supply chain
vulnerability (Svensson, 2000; Christopher et al., 2002) increases, and it will increase
even more if companies, by outsourcing, have become dependent on other
organizations. A number of current business trends that increase the vulnerability
to risks in supply chains are:
.
increased use of outsourcing of manufacturing and R&D to suppliers;
.
globalization of supply chains;
.
reduction of supplier base;
.
more intertwined and integrated processes between companies;
.
reduced buffers, e.g. inventory and lead time;
.
increased demand for on-time deliveries in shorter time windows, and shorter
lead times;
.
shorter product life cycles and compressed time-to-market;
fast and heavy ramp-up of demand early in product life cycles; and
capacity limitation of key components.
Souter (2000) stresses that companies should not only focus on their own risks: they
must also focus on risks in other links in their supply chain. According to Lambert and
Cooper (2000) and Mentzer et al. (2001), for example, a key component for supply chain
management (SCM) is sharing both risks and rewards between the members of the
supply chain. This is often mentioned, but not further elaborated on, in traditional SCM
literature. The focus of supply chain risk management (SCRM) is to understand, and
try to avoid, the devastating ripple effects that disasters or even minor business
disruptions can have in a supply chain. Some examples of risk sources and such
supply chain rippling effects from the last few years are:
.
Hurricanes. Hurricane Floyd flooded a Daimler-Chrysler plant producing
suspension parts in Greenville, North Carolina (USA). As a result, seven of the
companys other plants across North America had to be shut down for seven
days.
.
Diseases. The foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in 2001 affected the agriculture
industry more than its last outbreak 25 years ago. The reason for this was that
former local and regional supply networks had become national and
international, and that the industry was much more consolidated (Juttner et al.,
2002). But many other industries were also affected: luxury car manufacturers
like Volvo and Jaguar had to stop deliveries due to lack of quality leather supply.
.
Fires. Toyota was forced to shut down 18 plants for almost two weeks following
a fire in February 1997 at its brake-fluid proportioning valve supplier (Aisin
Seiki). Costs caused by the disruption were estimated to be $195 million and sales
loss was estimated to 70,000 vehicles (, $325 million) (Converium, 2001).
.
Demand. Rapidly weakening demand coupled with locked-in supply agreements
made Cisco take a $2.5 billion inventory write-off in Q2 2001.
.
Supply. Inaccurate supply planning led Nike to an inventory shortage of hot
footwear models and the sales for Q3 2001 were $100 million off target.
.
Supply chain capacity risks. In a situation where demand is very uncertain, and
the capacity bottleneck is far upstream from the market place, the risk of
investing in more capacity could be a joint issue for the whole supply chain, and
different instruments for supply chain risk sharing can be used.
Purpose
Recently, the interest of supply chain risk management has increased in purchasing,
logistics and supply chain management research (e.g. Smeltzer and Siferd, 1998;
Zsidisin and Ellram, 1999; Hallikas et al., 2000; Ritchie et al., 2000; Lindroth and
Norrman, 2001; Johnson, 2001; Lamming et al., 2001; Christopher et al., 2002). This
article aims to extend current SCRM knowledge by describing and sharing insights of
a companys new organization, processes and tools focused on SCRM. The company is
Ericsson, a leading telecom company seriously affected by a fire at a sub-supplier some
years ago, an accident which has been widely reported (e.g. TheWall Street Journal,
2001).
Ericssons
proactive
approach
435
IJPDLM
34,5
436
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, literature related to

supply chain risk management and business continuity planning in a supply chain
perspective will be summarized to give a background of the topic. Then there is a short
discussion of the methodology. Next, the case is introduced by a short description of
the Albuquerque incident that increased Ericssons focus on supply chain risk
management. The following section describes Ericssons current approach to SCRM,
and the paper ends with a concluding discussion.
Supply chain risk management

The underlying definition of SCRM in this article is:
Supply chain risk management is to [collaborate] with partners in a supply chain apply risk
management process tools to deal with risks and uncertainties caused by, or impacting on,
logistics related activities or resources (Norrman and Lindroth, 2002).
Supply chain risk management could of course deal with risks for a single company, or
even with the impact on a single logistics activity. But following the definition, the unit
analyzed should represent a buyer-seller relationship (a dyad) or, preferably, a supply
chain of three or more companies. Two important dimensions in the definition are risk
and uncertainties and the risk management process, which will now be further
elaborated on.
Risk and uncertainty
Deloach (2000) defines business risk as the level of exposure to uncertainties that the
enterprise must understand and effectively manage as it executes its strategies to
achieve its business objectives and create value. A more standard definition of risk is
risk is the chance, in quantitative terms, of a defined hazard occurring. It therefore
combines a probabilistic measure of the occurrence of the primary event(s) with a
measure of the consequences of that/those event(s) (The Royal Society, 1992, p. 4).
Hence, risk is a quality that reflects both the range of possible outcomes and the
distribution of respective probabilities for each of the outcomes. This quantitative
definition could be expressed: Risk Probability (of the event) * Business Impact (or
severity) of the event, often illustrated in a risk map or matrix (Figure 1). While risks
can be calculated, uncertainties are genuinely unknown.
But as soon as the quantitative definition is left for a broader and more business
oriented perspective, the term also gets fuzzier. Juttner et al. (2002) have also observed
that the use of the term risk can be confusing, and they argue that risk should be
separated from risk (and uncertainty) sources and risk consequences (equal to the
term risk impact). Risk sources are the environmental, organizational or supply chain
related variables that cannot be predicted with certainty and that affect the supply
chain-outcome variables. Juttner et al. (2002) suggest organizing risk sources relevant
for supply chains into three categories:
(1) Numbers: external to the supply chain.
(2) Internal to the supply chain.
(3) Network related.
External risk sources are exemplified by political risks, natural risks, social risks,
industry/market risks (e.g. volatility of customer demand). Internal risk sources
Ericssons
proactive
approach
437
Figure 1.
Risk map/matrix
range from labor (strikes) or production (e.g. machine failure) to IT system

uncertainties. Network-related risks arise from interaction between organizations
within the supply chain, e.g. due to insufficient interaction and cooperation. Risk
consequences/impacts are the focused supply chain outcome variables like costs or
quality (but also health and safety), i.e. the different forms in which the variance
becomes manifest. Other authors discussing similar types of risks are Johnson (2001)
and Zsidisin (2001). Johnson (2001) divides supply chains risks between supply risks
(e.g. capacity limitations, currency fluctuations and supply disruptions) and demand
risks (e.g. seasonal imbalances, volatility of fads, new products). Zsidisin et al. (e.g.
2000) focuses on supply risks related to design, quality, cost, availability,
manufacturability, supplier, legal, and environmental, health and safety.
We find supply chain risks to be related to the logistics activities in companies
flows of material and information. Consequently, it is only a part of all business risks.
(But, on the other hand, the supply chain perspective also implies a perspective not
only including your own company, but a chain of at least three entities: customers,
suppliers, sub-suppliers, etc.)
The stages of the risk management process
Risk management is the making of decisions regarding risks and their subsequent
implementation, and flows from risk estimation and risk evaluation (The Royal
Society, 1992, p. 3). The risk management process is focused on understanding the
risks, and minimizing their impact by addressing, e.g. probability and direct impact.
The stages of the risk management process discussed can vary from risk
identification/analysis (or estimation) via risk assessment (or evaluation) to different
ways of risk management (labels differ among authors although the steps are similar).
Parallel to risk management is the issue of how to mitigate the consequences of an
accident if it does happen: to deal with the situation in a way that minimizes business
impact. This is normally referred to as business continuity management (BCM) and
relates to those management disciplines, processes and techniques, which seek to
provide the means for continuous operations of essential functions under all
circumstances (Hiles and Barnes, 2001, p. 379). BCM aims at getting interrupted
IJPDLM
34,5
438
businesses restarted. In many ways, risk management and BCM are overlapping, and
some argue that business continuity plans development is the risk management action
to take for risks of low probability (such as fires and floods), but whose potential
impact is a business failure.
Supply chain risk analysis and assessment
Risk analysis/identification is an important stage in the risk management process.
Consequently, by identifying a risk, decision-makers become aware of events that may
cause disturbances. To assess supply chain risk exposures, the company must identify
not only direct risks to its operations, but also the potential causes or sources of those
risks at every significant link along the supply chain (Christopher et al., 2002). Hence,
the main focus of supply chain risk analysis is to recognize future uncertainties to
enable proactive management of risk-related issues.
There are many methods for risk identification and analysis. One important tool is
risk mapping, i.e. using a structured approach and mapping risk sources and thereby
understanding their potential consequences. Two commonly used techniques for
researching factors and causes contributing to accidental events are the fault tree
analysis (FTA) and the event tree analysis (ETA). Both are logic diagrams that
represent the sequences of failures that may propagate through a complex system.
FTA examines all potential events leading up to the critical event and is a graphical
diagram that shows how a system can fail. The analysis starts with top events, then
the necessary and sufficiently hazardous events, the causes and contributing factors of
which are identified together with their logical relationships by way of a backward
logic. The ETA is also a graphical logic diagram, but goes the other way. It focuses on
events that could occur after a critical event and identifies and quantifies possible
outcomes following initiating events by looking at potential consequences (e.g. Mullai
and Paulsson, 2002). For both techniques, quantitative data, such as probabilities for
events, could be used to get an idea of the final probability. Deloach (2000) proposes a
similar tool called risk driver map, where potential threats are mapped.
After the risk analysis, it is important to assess and prioritize risks to be able to
choose management actions appropriate to the situation. One common method is to
compare events by assessing their probabilities and consequences and put them in a
risk map/matrix (Figure 1). In theory, and when historical events are assessed, this
could be quite a straightforward and quantitative task, but in business this could be a
subjective process relying on specialists judgements. Hallikas et al. (2000), show an
example of this in a supply context. In practice, other risk assessment tools are also
used, which are not consistent with the theory of probability and impact but cover a
broader perspective instead. Zsidisin and Ellram (1999) summarize the supply risk
assessment process of a Fortune 500 high-tech company, and propose a ten-step
approach to risk assessment (Figure 2). Primarily, they are concerned with
material-related risks that could affect timely and cost-effective delivery of quality
products and services.
Risk management
Risk management is the process whereby decisions are made to accept a known or
assessed risk and/or the implementation of actions to reduce the consequences or
probability of occurrence. Generally used actions for risk management are to avoid,
reduce, transfer, share or even take the risk. To avoid is to eliminate the types of event
that could trigger the risk. To reduce applies both to reduction of probability and
consequence. Examples of how to reduce the impact could be to have an extra
inventory, multiple sources, back-up sites/resources identified, sprinklers in buildings,
having risk managers and emergency teams appointed, parallel systems or to
diversify. Probability could be reduced by improving risky operational processes, both
internally and in cooperation with suppliers, and to improve related processes, e.g.
supplier selection. Risk could also be transferred to insurance companies but also to
supply chain partners by moving inventory liability, changing delivery times of
suppliers (just-in-time deliveries) and to customers (make-to-order manufacturing), or
by outsourcing activities. Furthermore, contracts can be used to transfer commercial
risks. Finally, risks could be shared, both by contractual mechanisms (e.g. Tsay et al.
(1998) or Cachon (2002), for a review on supply chain contracts) and by improved
collaboration.
Ericssons
proactive
approach
439
Business continuity management

Business continuity management (BCM) is defined as:
. . . the development of strategies, plans and actions which provide protection or alternative
modes of operation for those activities or business processes which, if they were to be
interrupted, might otherwise bring about a seriously damaging or potentially fatal loss to the
enterprise (Hiles and Barnes, 2001).
Business continuity management includes crisis management (overall processes to

manage the incident), disaster recovery (recovery of critical systems, applications, data
and networks), business recovery (recovery of critical business processes) and
contingency planning (recovery from impact external to the organization) (CMI, 2002).
Developing action plans is important in BCM, and business continuity planning
(BCP) is a term often used. BCP is planning to ensure continued operations in case of a
catastrophic event. But it goes beyond disaster-recovery planning, since it includes the
actions to be taken, resources required, and procedures to be followed to ensure the
continued availability of essential services, programs and operations in the event of
unexpected interruptions. BCP has previously been mostly related to computers and
information technology-related disasters, especially before Y2K, but since then the
approach has moved towards more applications in other business contexts. However,
according to a study by CMI (2002), only about 30 percent of all companies studied
developed BCP jointly with suppliers. Only 9 percent of companies that have
outsourced activities (not only logistics) insist on their outsource suppliers having
business continuity plans.
Figure 2.
Supply risk assessment
process based on Zsidisin
and Ellram (1999)
IJPDLM
34,5
440
The first activities in developing business continuity plans are identifying the risks
and assessing their probability and impact the steps are hence identical to risk
management. Part of this is to understand what will be affected (damage potential
analysis). Then, strategies and recovery plans should be developed that could be
implemented both before the incident (similar to risk management strategies) and after
the incident. Post-incident strategies are implemented to maintain partial or total
product supply and could for manufacturing and logistics include (Musson, 2001):
.
use of spare capacity within the organization;
.
shutdown of marginal product lines and transfer of key products to those
production facilities;
.
assistance from competition;
.
outsourcing to sub-contractors, job shops, etc.;
.
re-labeling of competitors products (after consideration of all legal implications);
and
.
establishment of temporary facilities when production capabilities can be
established with off-the-shelf or second-hand equipment.
Methodology
Since only limited empirical research on how companies deal with supply chain risk
management has been found, an explorative approach has been chosen. Examples of
earlier case studies in the area are those of Zsidisin (2001), Zsidisin and Ellram (1999)
and Zsidisin et al. (2000), but they have focused more on purchasing and supply than
a supply-chain approach, consisting of the idea to work with risks along multiple
companies in a chain. In our study, a single case is used, which is an appropriate way of
establishing the field at the early stages of an emerging topic (Eisenhardt, 1989). To
capture and examine contemporary events, the case study approach is normally
preferred (Yin, 1994). The single case could give good enough insights on the breadth
of issues and a better opportunity to penetrate important issues. Ericsson has been
chosen for several different reasons: It is in a volatile industry that faces many of the
business trends described in the introduction; it has recently had a major supply chain
incident that has been widely reported; lately, it has worked hard to improve its supply
chain risk management; and, finally, the company has been willing to openly share its
experiences and has given good access to information and data.
Empirical data have initially been collected through semi-structured and open
interviews done by the academic co-author with about ten representatives from various
functions within Ericsson: corporate risk management, core unit supply (a both
strategic and operational SCM-function), sourcing, and supply chain risk management
(industry co-author). In addition, supplementary documents showing processes,
organizational structures and risk management tools were collected by the academic
co-author to verify and more detailed illustrate the findings from the interviews. By
using multiple sources of evidence and interviewees, construct validity improves (Yin,
1994). The joint writing process started with a structured synopsis developed by the
academic researcher, comparable with an interview guide, which was then filled with
facts and descriptions in a collaborative writing and analysis process. (The industry
co-author had of course meetings and written communication with colleagues to get
supplementary data and opinions). By this collaborative writing and analysis process
between an academic and industry co-author, we think that the richness of the case
study description can be improved as well as the construct validity increased (Yin,
1994, pp. 32-4). Further the final paper has been returned for comments and correction
to the other functions interviewed. As this research is an explorative single case study,
external validity and broad generalizability are difficult to address. One purpose has
been to describe pioneering practice for other practioneers to make it possible to
benchmark, and for academics to start a process of analytical generalization (Yin,
1994) by first doing replicate studies and pattern matching-analysis. Hence external
validity and generalizability could increase over time with more cases.
Ericsson and the sub-supplier accident
Ericsson is the largest supplier of mobile telecom systems in the world, active
worldwide since 1876 and currently employing approximately 61,000 people in more
than 140 countries. The worlds ten largest mobile-phone operators are among their
customers and some 40 percent of all mobile phone calls are made through Ericsson
systems. For the last ten years, Ericsson has outsourced a great deal of its assembly
and production to contract manufacturers and sub-suppliers. With Sony Ericsson
(including Ericssons old cellular phone business) it is also a top supplier of complete
mobile multi-media products. Like most companies, Ericsson has been exposed to a
number of risks and incidents in the last few years:, e.g. suppliers having quality and
delivery problem, industries general lack of capacity, and power disruption lasting a
few days. We will shortly describe the accident that can be seen as the major trigger for
Ericsson to improve its supply chain risk management.
The Albuquerque accident
A major accident from an Ericsson perspective was a fire on 18 March 2000 in a very
small production cell (small as a conference room for ten people) at a sub-suppliers
plant in Albuquerque, New Mexico (USA). The ten-minute fire was an effect of a
lightning bolt hitting an electric line in New Mexico, causing power fluctuations
throughout the state. The problem was that when the power was out, there was no
spare diesel motor to supply the fans with power, so the fans stopped. From a plant
perspective, the resulting fire was almost negligible, and when the fire brigade
arrived it was sent home as the fire already was out (The Wall Street Journal). But for
Ericsson, the impact was huge. In the spring of 2001, when the annual report from
Ericsson was announced, a major loss of about $400 million was indicated, primarily
due to gaps in the supply of radio-frequency chips from this supplier. The reason was
that the fire occurred in one of the plants clean rooms, where absolutely no dust is
tolerated. Due to the fire, and especially the smoke and sprinkler water, it took almost
three weeks until the production was up and running. After six months, the yield was
only 50 percent, and it would take years to get new equipment delivered and
installed. As this plant was Ericssons only source for this chip, Ericsson was not able
to sell and deliver one of its key consumer products during its booming market
window. The company lost many months of mobile phone production, and the
accident finally had a great impact on Ericssons decision to withdraw from the
mobile phone terminal business.
Later, Ericssons business interruption costs were calculated as approximately $200
million, which was compensated by insurance companies. This was one of the biggest
Ericssons
proactive
approach
441
IJPDLM
34,5
442
insurance payments that year (after the 9/11 disaster). The accident made Ericsson
realize the importance of not only understanding and managing risks internally but
also trying to better analyze, assess and manage risk along the supply chain and to
take immediate action when incidents are indicated. In a widespread analysis, The
Wall Street Journal argued that Ericsson did not take action quickly and powerfully
enough after the Albuquerque accident, and that it took too long before higher
management was aware of the incident. Further, Ericsson neither had alternative
sources nor was prepared for this kind of accident. Now, actions have been taken:
During the last few years, a formal SCRM organization has been put in place, and
many SCRM processes and tools have been developed and implemented. Todays
philosophy at Ericsson is that everyone is a risk manager.
Ericssons current supply chain risk management approach

In the last few years (after the Albuquerque accident and before the renewal of its
insurance), Ericsson has further developed and implemented processes and tools for
supply chain risk management. The purpose is minimizing risk exposure in the
supply chain. Its approach for this (Figure 3) is based on a process with
feedback-loops between the sub-processes. The risk management process includes risk
identification (similar to risk analysis), risk assessment, risk treatment (similar to risk
management) as previously discussed in theory, but it has also added a process step for
risk monitoring. In parallel (and central) to this, the company has put incident handling
and contingency planning.
Organizational principles and responsibility
Previously, risk management was handled by a corporate function, mostly dealing
with insurance companies (and later also security). In the last few years the
organisation for supply chain risk management has been developed and many people
and functions are involved. On a high level, the corporate function for risk
management, the SCM/logistics function (in Ericsson called the core unit supply) and
the purchasing function (core unit sourcing) are involved, as well as (Figure 4) the units
responsible for the different business areas (SBAs). They are working together in a
Figure 3.
Ericssons basic approach
to SCRM
Ericssons
proactive
approach
443
Figure 4.
Organization of risk
management on a
corporate level
matrix-oriented way, for example with a risk management council with representatives
from the different units. The roles of the main functions involved are:
.
corporate risk management has the overall responsibility for risk management in
the Ericsson group and has contact with the insurance companies and co-ordinates
risk management activities in the whole group, also developing directives;
.
core unit supply (CSUP) is responsible for the operative work and daily interface
with suppliers;
.
system business area (SBA) has the business perspective and owns the product;
and
.
core unit sourcing is responsible for the commercial interfaces with the supplier
and is therefore involved in evaluation of suppliers and when incidents occur.
A matrix approach is taken (Figure 5) on a more operational level within the
SCM/logistics function (CSUP), as well. A supply chain risk manager, placed within
core unit supply, is responsible for development and implementation of SCRM. He is
working closely together with corporate risk management, as well as with the line
people (supply chain managers), responsible for different supply chains and hence
also for the supply chains risks. Supply chain managers are also part of CSUP, but
interfacing the SBAs. Supply chain managers should use the tools and processes
developed by the SCR manager to analyze, assess and manage risk in their supply
chains. In this work purchasers are involved in the assessments of and contacts with
suppliers. The roles of the operational people involved in SCRM are:
.
Supply chain risk manager (SCR manager) at core unit supply runs and
coordinates the work to maintain an optimal balance between risk exposures and
costs for damages versus protection activities.
.
Supply chain managers (SCM) within CSUP are the interface to SBAs and have
full responsibility for the respective SBAs supply chain. They are responsible
for risk management as regards securing the reliability of supply chains and
their ability to deliver.
.
Core production: supports SCM with risk management issues.
IJPDLM
34,5
444
Figure 5.
Organization of SCRM
within the SCM/logistics
function core unit supply
The matrix approach means that many different players are involved in and sharing
responsibility for implementing and maintaining information regarding risk
management. This could make roles unclear, and hence responsibility grids
(Figure 6) are defined. However, the key responsibility lies with the SCMs that
should run the risk management work in their respective supply chain.
Risk identification process
Initially, Ericsson identifies and analyzes its supply chain risks by mapping the
supply chain upstream, looking at suppliers as well as products/services (Figure 7).
Figure 6.
Part of responsibility grid
Ericssons
proactive
approach
445
Figure 7.
Supply chain risk and
structure map
The purpose of this is verifying the business flow between Ericsson and the
supplier/service provider and defining the critical parts and risk sources in the
process, i.e. products, components, sites, etc. The goal is to get a better
understanding of what the probability and impact of the risks are. So far, more than
10,000 components have been analyzed, mainly of first and second tier suppliers.
First, each component is classified into four different classes depending on the
number of sources:
(1) The product is currently sourced from more than one approved source (e.g. two
or more manufacturers or one manufacturer with two or more sites).
(2) The product is currently sourced from one approved source; other sources are
approved and available but not used.
(3) The product is currently sourced from one approved source; other sources are
available and approved but no tools, masks or other equipment needed are in
place.
(4) The product is currently sourced from one supplier. No additional manufacturer
is available.
Ericsson then tries to understand the impact by looking at how long an accident will
affect deliveries. This is expressed by business recovery time (BRT). Components are
put into four different classes:
(1) It takes less than three months to get deliveries from an alternative source.
(2) Three to eight months to get approval and deliveries from an alternative source.
(3) Nine to 12 months, re-design the only alternative.
(4) 12 months, re-design of a unit/product of high complexity.
Risk assessment process
Then, an in-depth analysis is carried out of the suppliers and sub-suppliers of critical
products. For this, Ericsson has developed a tool called Ericsson risk management
evaluation tool (ERMET). ERMET (Figure 8) evaluates many different issues in detail,
e.g. business control, financial issues, hazards in the surroundings (external as well as
IJPDLM
34,5
446
Figure 8.
Overview of ERMET
Ericsson risk management
evaluation tool
man-made); hazards at the site; and business-interruption handling. The tool is used to
analyze both internal and external suppliers. Internally, the tool will be used in
combination with contingency planning.
When using ERMET, corporate risk managers and SCR managers often work
together, as the tool is complex and requires knowledge to use. Often, a representative
from sourcing is brought in, who is responsible for the supplier contacts. Each sub-area
in ERMET is thoroughly evaluated by looking into different aspects (see Figure 9),
trying to quantify the risk by looking at impact (consequence) and probability. The
suppliers total risk situation, and their forecasted development, is then summarized
into spider-web diagrams. Those evaluations are done regularly and are used to follow
up improvements and action plans.
ERMET is mostly focusing on operational accidents and catastrophes and how to
avoid business interruption. Ericsson uses other tools to try to identify and assess more
strategic uncertainties such as shifts in products or product generations. When a risk
or uncertainty source has been identified, the SCR manager facilitates workshops
attended by different functional and business specialists where events are discussed
that could lead to risks. For each event causes are identified, so that preventive actions
can be developed. (This methodology is similar to FTA). The analysis and actions are
then summarized into special templates that are later used for follow-up and
monitoring of the risks (Figure 10).
Ericsson tries to combine impact and probability in a risk map/matrix. But it has
found that the risk value (calculated by multiplying impact and probability) is not
always easy to use, as the probability could be difficult to get and the value is not
always understandable to business people. Therefore, Ericsson is focusing on the
financial impact when assessing which risks to prioritize and for which supplier or
components to take actions. To get a financial value of the impact on Ericssons own
business, the company calculates the business interruption value (BIV). Currently this
value is defined by gross margin multiplied by the business recovery time (BRT)
plus extra costs such as idle capacity labor and equipment, inventory carrying etc. Its
aim is to also consider values such as lost goodwill. This calculation is made by the
Ericssons
proactive
approach
447
Figure 9.
Examples of detailed risk
assessment and summary
diagrams
business control function in order to help the supply chain manager. To categorize the
risks, BIV is divided into four classes:
(1) Severe: BIV . , $100 million.
(2) Major: BIV , $50 million-$100 million.
(3) Minor: BIV , $10 million-$50 million.
(4) Negligible: BIV , , $10 million.
IJPDLM
34,5
448
Figure 10.
Risk map/matrix and
corresponding risk
management actions
This is then used as a basis for the risk matrix to compare the result from the risk
identification process to understand the impact if an interruption occurs (very high,
high, medium or low). For each of these risk levels, different actions are required
(Figure 11). Ericsson finds risks with high consequences/low probability more
important to handle from a risk management perspective than those with low
consequence/high probability.
Risk treatment/management
The third step in Ericssons process is called risk treatment, which includes both
developing risk mitigation strategies and deciding on those. This is a line
responsibility, and who is doing it depends on which tier the risk source is part of:
for higher tier, supplier sourcing is responsible, while for lower tier, the supply chain
manager (Figure 6), and for internal plants it is production. Standard templates and
tools for this (Figure 10) are developed by the SCR manager. Those templates start
with describing the risk source and its probability and consequence, and continue with
a summary of different mitigations strategies, their costs and how they affect the risk
situation. To compare the cost of different preventive actions with the business
interruption value is regarded as very important. Finally, responsible persons are
appointed.
Ericssons
proactive
approach
449
Risk monitoring and follow-up

If the risk level is very high, or high and not mitigated, risk monitoring is required. If
the residual risk, after mitigation, is not reduced to an acceptable risk level it must
continue to be monitored. Risk assessment and treatment templates (Figure 10) and
the spider web (Figure 9) are used to monitor who is responsible internally and how
different supply chain partners are developing compared to their commitments. For
suppliers and sub-suppliers, special attention is given to how their risk management
processes are developing.
Incident handling and business continuity planning
Ericsson is putting emphasis on developing procedures and templates for incident
handling and BCP to decrease the consequences of an accident. After the Albuquerque
accident, the process for incident reporting is very important and task
forces/emergency teams have been appointed. If an incident occurs, this should be
reported to either the sourcing task force (if external supplier) or the SCM task force
and production task force (if internal supplier). When an incident has been reported, it
should then be communicated to the other task forces as well as to the supply chain
risk manager and the corporate risk management (Figure 12). Also, related SBA and
Figure 11.
Templates for risk
assessment and treatment,
and contingency planning
IJPDLM
34,5
450
Figure 12.
Information flow and task
forces for incident
handling
market representatives that might potentially be affected should be notified. It is not

tolerated that suppliers not report incidents they should not first be reported by
newspapers or other sources. The task forces/emergency teams will be trained at least
once a year in different scenarios, for example a disruption in the supply chain due to a
disaster at a class four supplier. When an incident occurs, the three task forces should
work closely together, if necessary.
To develop contingency plans, a toolbox is available on the intranet. While the
previous contingency planning focus was on site recovery, it has now moved towards a
focus on the whole supply chain. If Ericsson cannot manage a risk by eliminating or
minimizing the consequences, the company makes a contingency plan to know what to
do if something happens. Ericsson has divided contingency planning into three steps
(Figure 10):
(1) Response plan: the response is the required reaction to an incident or emergency
to assess the level of containment and to control activity.
(2) Recovery plan: the recovery phase actions shall include the actions that are
needed to resume critical or essential business operations, functions or
processes.
(3) Restoration plan: the process of planning for and implementing full-scale
business operations again and to allow the organization to return to normal
service level.
For each risk source, a responsible person shall be appointed and actions for response,
recovery as well as restoration phase be developed.
The supply chain approach to risk management and business continuity management
Supply chain risk management is not only to analyze, assess and manage internal
risks and try to plan for business continuity for the own company. SCRM means
widening this approach to the chain of suppliers and suppliers suppliers. This could
be done by visiting suppliers and analyze and assess them, but more proactively to
make them implement a SCRM approach themselves, which guarantees a further
spread upstream.
Ericsson is implementing this approach both by soft discussion and by putting

the following guidelines as requirements into the frame contracts:
.
The supplier shall establish and maintain a secure sourcing plan including
regularly updated business continuity and business contingency plans.
.
The supplier shall identify a back-up site/resource for each relevant site.
.
A person responsible for initiating the secure sourcing plan activities shall be
appointed for each relevant site.
.
Key personnel at the supplier shall be appointed and reasonably trained on
Ericssons specific product requirements. Alternatively, personnel in the
facilities concerned shall be prepared to be transferred to the dedicated
back-up capacity.
.
The supplier shall report incidents.
.
The Ericsson entities placing orders should be allowed to review the plan.
.
The supplier shall have corresponding requirements on its suppliers and
contractors.
.
The supplier shall actively work with risk management with its contractors and
suppliers.
.
Ericsson shall at any time have the option to acquire some or all assets which are
unique for the production of Ericsson products by the supplier.
Ericssons
proactive
approach
451
To summarize Ericssons approach for SCRM (Figure 13) it starts with mapping all the
components and products many tiers upstream the supply chain and identifies critical
suppliers and sites that have to be prioritized in the further risk assessment. Suppliers,
first critical then others, are then analyzed and assessed with the Ericsson evaluation
tool (ERMET), which takes many different risk sources into account. By these two first
Figure 13.
Ericssons approach to
supply chain risk
management
IJPDLM
34,5
452
steps, a rough assessment is made on how a shortage of a material or product will

affect the supply chain and, finally, Ericssons invoicing. Based on a more thorough
investigation, risk probability and the impact of different accidents at each supplier
will be evaluated and the impact measured as business recovery time. The supplier
risk is then translated to the risk related to Ericssons business with the impact
measured in business interruption value. Based on this assessment, risk management
actions can be discussed and taken. A very important part in this last step is to find the
right trade-off between risk management (protection) cost and risk cost (impact
measured as BIV): a too high investment in safeguards is not good business practice,
either.
So far, most joint work has been with the next upstream tier, the contract
manufacturers. They have been very positive to and interested in the co-operative
approach to secure the supply chain and reduce supply chain risks. An important
part of the work has been to share tools and methods used in the risk management
process to analyze and assess risks.
Business impact of improved supply chain risk management
The new SCRM approach has so far contributed well to Ericsson. After the
Albuquerque accident, it was quite difficult to get new business-interruption
insurances. The insurance companies were skeptical and an increase of insurance costs
was flagged. Further, they demanded more and more information on risks in the
supply chain. With the current way of working with SCRM, this has changed again,
and lately, insurance companies have praised Ericssons way of working, and will
probably impose the same requirements on other companies. The insurance premium
offered was 50 percent lower than Ericsson first expected, due to its SCRM work.
Although the supply chains now are more secure and less vulnerable, there have
been incidents after Albuquerque (and always will be). During the implementation of
SCRM processes, a new incident occurred at a supplier. A small fire in a plating line
caused a disruption. This incident gave Ericsson the opportunity to test and verify the
processes with a real case. In their risk identification process, the business recovery
time for that component was estimated to approximately three months, which proved
to be correct. Based on BRT and previous experience, Ericsson could act and set up
enough resources to handle the incident. Ericsson quickly enough allocated
components, so there was no disruption in their inbound supply.
The SCRM tools have also started being used for other purposes than those they
were initially developed for. The supply chain risk and structure maps are now also
used to assess capacity and dimensioning risks in order to arrange buffers. Another
example is that a SBA uses the cause-event analysis for risks related to product
introduction, ramp-up and product changes. This indicates that the SCRM work has
been positively received by the organization.
Concluding discussion
Supply chain risk management seems to be of growing interest and importance both
from an academic and a practioner perspective. The development lately within
SCM/logistics has created long, lean and interconnected chains of companies
vulnerable to accidents and their rippling effects. In the last few years, there have been
many examples of such accidents, and in this article we have described Ericssons new
approach to SCRM after its supply chain accident in Albuquerque. Ericsson has now
developed and implemented improved organization, processes and tools for supply
chain risk management. It tries to identify, analyze and manage both internal and
external risk sources, related to the company as well as its suppliers and sub-suppliers.
By this, and an increased requirement on and cooperation with suppliers regarding
risk management, it also tries to avoid impact from network related risk sources.
According to Ericsson, an important success factor, to make SCRM work, is having an
open discussion with the suppliers, both during risk analysis and assessment, but
particularly when handling incidents. Many ideas and tools have been taken from
normal risk management practice, but have been applied with a supply chain
perspective, focusing not only on Ericssons own activities. As a result, risk
consequences have been reduced, Ericsson has been better able to handle incidents and
its insurance costs have been reduced. However, the approach is continuously
implemented and has still not come to its end (if it ever will). Although Ericssons
approach can be considered proactive, the company will stress the importance of
having reactive task forces prepared. Even if much resources are invested in risk
analysis and assessment, accidents might appear where and when least expected and
then an efficient crisis organization must be in place to minimize the consequences.
Ericssons work has, to some extent, been driven by a pressure from insurance
companies a pressure that most likely will be put on other companies and industries
too. What the insurance companies realized, with the Albuquerque accident as a
trigger, was that they did not understand the risks, risk sources and consequences that
the current long supply chains and their rippling effects had. Hence, a new driving
force for companies to work with SCRM could be that insurance companies will require
it to reduce insurance premiums or even to sell contingency insurances.
Current logistics and supply chain principles have been influenced by the attempts
in the last few decades, first to reduce costs, then time and quality, and have lately
focused on concepts of responsiveness, agility and leanness (Figure 14).
Those principles could lead to very vulnerable supply chains, and, consequently, the
interest in SCRM has increased lately. However, to safeguard logistics processes too
much could be both counteractive to current best practice in logistics as well as too
costly. Hence, we would argue that a balanced approach should be taken, where SCRM
Ericssons
proactive
approach
453
Figure 14.
Key focus areas within
logistics and SCM
IJPDLM
34,5
454
is one part of the equation. This could be done by trying to relate risk consequences to
time (business recovery time) and money (business interruption value) as Ericsson is
now doing. Further, it is possible to expand the risk management focus from the
companies own sites to suppliers and sub-suppliers by working together in risk
identification, assessment, management and business continuity planning, but also by
formal assessment of how suppliers are working with those issues and by putting
requirements into the contracts. Current and new logistics principles could be
evaluated from a SCRM perspective, and risk management actions must be evaluated
from a logistics perspective focusing on cost, time, quality etc. Some connections
between SCRM and the other areas (Figure 14) are:
.
Risk and costs: SCRM might create too high prevention costs (reducing
probability or impact by increased buffers, new processes, extra suppliers, etc) as
well as reduce cost for both business interruptions and insurances. The Ericsson
case is an example in which the risk is measured in money (BIV), prevention cost
is compared to risk costs, and insurance cost is decreased thanks to improved
SCRM.
.
Risk and time: SCRM might create buffers and processes delaying lead time
but through good and well thought out SCRM other actions should be found.
Time could also be reduced e.g. the reaction time when an incident or accident
happens. Ericsson is also an example of how a time measurement (BRT) is used
to assess risk impact.
.
Risk and quality: these two areas are most similar and should definitely work out
well in parallel both have a clear process orientation and a focus on avoiding
errors (Lee and Wolfe, 2003, elaborate on this issue).
.
Risk and agility, responsiveness and leanness: companies efforts to increase
agility, responsiveness and leanness have led to increased outsourcing and
reduced buffers and lead time and hence to increased vulnerability. Ericsson is
characterized by this aspiration and has implied a high risk exposure.
However, as these three concepts are very important in todays business, efficient
SCRM is important for managing the increased risk exposure.
The main contributions of this article have been to stress the supply chain approach
in SCRM as a complement to more purchasing oriented studies, and to give a quite
detailed description of how SCRM could work in practice. By using a case company
that only a few years ago was seriously affected by a sub-suppliers fire and hence
started to focus on SCRM, it should hopefully bring new insights both to academy and
practioners. The interrelation between supply chain risk management and current
logistic/supply chain management principles is not clear, and we find this to be an
interesting field for future research so that SCRM actions neither decreases supply
chain efficiency nor is seen only as costly and time consuming.
References
Cachon, G. (2002), Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts, The Wharton School of Business,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Chartered Management Institute (CMI) (2002), Business Continuity and Supply Chain
Management, report available at: www.thebci.org/2809-01%20Bus%20Continuity%
20Summ.pdf
Christopher, M., McKinnon, A., Sharp, J., Wilding, R., Peck, H., Chapman, P., Juttner, U. and
Bolumole, Y. (2002), Supply Chain Vulnerability, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
Converium (2001), Suppliers extension or contingent business interruption insurance,
available at: www.converium.com/web/converium/converium.nsf/2a1b7a462af6c
00185256ad2000da28c/30c4e3ebc211d4f9c1256ad5004334b5?OpenDocument.
Deloach, J.W. (2000), Enterprise-wide Risk Management. Strategies for Linking Risk and
Opportunities, Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, London.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Hallikas, J., Virolainen, V.-M. and Tuominen, M. (2000), Risk analysis and assessment in
network environment a dyadic case study, Preprints of the 11th International Working
Seminar on Production Economics, pp. 255-70.
Hiles, A. and Barnes, P. (Eds) (2001), The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity
Management, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Johnson, M.E. (2001), Learning from toys: lessons in managing supply chain risk from the toy
industry, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 106-24.
Juttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2002), Supply chain risk management: outlining an
agenda for future research, in Griffiths, J., Hewitt, F. and Ireland, P. (Eds), Proceedings of
the Logistics Research Network 7th Annual Conference, pp. 443-50.
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), Issues in supply chain management, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 65-83.
Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., Harrison, D. and Phillips, W. (2001), Transparency in supply
relationships: concept and practice, Proceedings of the 10th International IPSERA
Conference, pp. 585-94.
Lee, H.L. and Wolfe, M. (2003), Supply chain security without tears, Supply Chain Management
Review, January/February, pp. 12-20.
Lindroth, R. and Norrman, A. (2001), Supply chain risks and risk sharing instruments an
illustration from the telecommunication industry, Proceedings of the Logistics Research
Network 6th Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, 13-14 September, pp. 297-307.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
Defining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
resund Hazardous Events, Causes and Claims,
Mullai, A. and Paulsson, U. (2002), Oil Spills in O
Lund University, Lund.
Musson, M. (2001), BC strategies for manufacturing and logistics, in Hiles, A. and Barnes, P.
(Eds), The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity Management, J. Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, pp. 163-70.
Norrman, A. and Lindroth, R. (2002), Supply chain risk management: purchasers vs planners
views on sharing capacity investment risks in the telecom iindustry, Proceedings of the
11th International Annual IPSERA Conference, Twente University, 25-27 March,
pp. 577-95.
Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., Morris, J. and Peet, S. (2000), Managing risk within the supply chain,
paper presented at the 9th International IPSERA conference, Ontario, May.
(The) Royal Society (1992), Analysis, Perception and Management, The Royal Society, London.
Ericssons
proactive
approach
455
IJPDLM
34,5
456
Smeltzer, L.R. and Siferd, S.P. (1998), Proactive supply management: the management of risk,
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Souter, G. (2000), Risks from supply chain also demand attention, Business Insurance, Vol. 34
No. 20, pp. 26-8.
Svensson, G. (2000), A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 731-50.
Tsay, A.A., Nahmias, S. and Agrawal, N. (1998), Modelling supply chain contracts: a review, in
Tayur, S. et al. (Eds), Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management, Kluwer
Academic, Norwall, MA, pp. 299-336.
Wall Street Journal (2001), Trial by fire a blaze in Albuquerque sets off major crisis for
cell-phone giants, 29 January.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods
Series, Vol. 5, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zsidisin, G. (2001), Measuring supply risk: an example from Europe, Practix, Best Practices in
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, June, pp. 1-6.
Zsidisin, G. and Ellram, L.M. (1999), Supply risk assessment analysis, Practix, Best Practices in
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, June, pp. 9-12.
Zsidisin, G., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000), Purchasing organization involvement in risk
assessment, contingency plans, and risk management: an exploratory study, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 187-97.
Further reading
A.T. Kearney and European Logistics Association (1999), Insight to Impact. Results of the 4th
Quinquennial European Logistics Study, ELA, Brussels.
Lonsdale, C. (1999), Effectively managing vertical relationships: a risk management model for
outsourcing, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 176-83.
This article has been cited by:

1. Hoda Davarzani, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Hazhir Rahmandad. 2015. Understanding econo-political risks:
impact of sanctions on an automotive supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 35:11, 1567-1591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Hoda Davarzani, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Hazhir Rahmandad. 2015. Understanding econo-political risks:
impact of sanctions on an automotive supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 1567-1591. [CrossRef]
3. Paula Santos Ceryno, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Katja Klingebiel. 2015. Supply chain risk: empirical research
in the automotive industry. Journal of Risk Research 18, 1145-1164. [CrossRef]
4. Daniel Ekwall, Bjrn Lantz. 2015. Modi operandi for cargo theft in EMEAA seasonality analysis.
Journal of Transportation Security . [CrossRef]
5. M. Tekin, S. zekici. 2015. Mean-Variance Newsvendor Model with Random Supply and Financial
Hedging. IIE Transactions 47, 910-928. [CrossRef]
6. V.G. Venkatesh, Snehal Rathi, Sriyans Patwa. 2015. Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retail
chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 26, 153-167. [CrossRef]
7. Helen Rogers, Mohit Srivastava, Kulwant S Pawar, Janat Shah. 2015. Supply chain risk management in
India practical insights. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1-22. [CrossRef]
8. Jukka Hallikas, Katrina Lintukangas. 2015. Purchasing and Supply: An Investigation of Risk Management
Performance. International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
9. Prince Boateng, Zhen Chen, Stephen O. Ogunlana. 2015. An Analytical Network Process model for risks
prioritisation in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management . [CrossRef]
10. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2015. Mean-variance analysis of sourcing decision under disruption risk.
European Journal of Operational Research . [CrossRef]
11. D. Bogataj, B. Aver, M. Bogataj. 2015. Supply chain risk at simultaneous robust perturbations.
International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
12. Faeghe Mohammaddust, Shabnam Rezapour, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Mohammad Mofidfar, Alex Hill.
2015. Developing lean and responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk mitigation
strategies in supply chain designs. International Journal of Production Economics . [CrossRef]
13. William Ho, Tian Zheng, Hakan Yildiz, Srinivas Talluri. 2015. Supply chain risk management: a literature
review. International Journal of Production Research 53, 5031-5069. [CrossRef]
14. Cunlu Zhang, Angappa Gunasekaran, William Yu Chung Wang. 2015. A comprehensive model for supply
chain integration. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:6, 1141-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Chamil E. Kodithuwakku, Deepthi N. Wickramarachchi. 2015. Identifying the Risk Dynamics of Supply
Chain Operations in Large Scale Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology 6, 272-277. [CrossRef]
16. Purushottam Lal Meena, Sarada Prasad Sarmah. 2015. Supplier selection and demand allocation under
supply disruption risks. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [CrossRef]
17. Jasmine Siu Lee Lam, Shiling Su. 2015. Disruption risks and mitigation strategies: an analysis of Asian
ports. Maritime Policy & Management 42, 415-435. [CrossRef]
18. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2015. Mitigating the effect of risk conditions on supply
disruptions: the role of manufacturing postponement enablers. Production Planning & Control 26,
637-653. [CrossRef]
19. Gang Li, Huan Fan, Peter K.C. Lee, T.C.E. Cheng. 2015. Joint supply chain risk management: An agency
and collaboration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 164, 83-94. [CrossRef]
20. Daniel Ekwall, Bjrn Lantz. 2015. Cargo theft at non-secure parking locations. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management 43:3, 204-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Christian F. Durach, Andreas Wieland, Jose A.D. Machuca. 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]
22. Faisal Aqlan, Sarah S. Lam. 2015. A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk assessment.
International Journal of Production Economics 161, 54-63. [CrossRef]
23. Benjamin Guertler, Stefan Spinler. 2015. Supply risk interrelationships and the derivation of key supply
risk indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 92, 224-236. [CrossRef]
24. Martin Tanco, Daniel Jurburg, Matias Escuder. 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]
25. Mustafa Gller, Emre Koc, Tobias Hegmanns, Michael Henke, Bernd Noche. 2015. A simulation-based
decision support framework for real-time supply chain risk management. International Journal of Advanced
Logistics 4, 17-26. [CrossRef]
26. Mohd. Nishat Faisal 1469. [CrossRef]
27. Ran Bhamra, Kevin Burnard, Samir Dani 3. [CrossRef]
28. Daniel Ekwall, Helmut Brls, Daniel Wyer. 2015. Theft of pharmaceuticals during transport in Europe.
Journal of Transportation Security . [CrossRef]
29. Wei Liu, Shiji Song, Bing Li, Cheng Wu. 2014. A periodic review inventory model with loss-averse
retailer, random supply capacity and demand. International Journal of Production Research 1-12. [CrossRef]
30. Santanu Mandal. 2014. Supply chain resilience: a state-of-the-art review and research directions.
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 5:4, 427-453. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
31. Katrina Lintukangas, Anni-Kaisa Khknen, Paavo Ritala. 2014. Supply risks as drivers of green supply
management adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
32. Rahul C. Basole, Marcus A. Bellamy. 2014. Visual analysis of supply network risks: Insights from the
electronics industry. Decision Support Systems 67, 109-120. [CrossRef]
33. Christoph Bode, Denis Hbner, Stephan M. Wagner. 2014. Managing Financially Distressed Suppliers:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:10.1111/jscm.2014.50.issue-4, 24-43.
[CrossRef]
34. Iris Heckmann, Tina Comes, Stefan Nickel. 2014. A Critical Review on Supply Chain Risk Definition,
Measure and Modeling. Omega . [CrossRef]
35. Chunhui Zhou, Kim-Leng PohOptimization of protections against supply chain risks due to intentional
acts 232-237. [CrossRef]
36. Satyendra Kumar Sharma, Anil Bhat. 2014. Supply chain risk management dimensions in Indian
automobile industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:6, 1023-1040. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
37. Djalma Arajo Rangel, Taiane Kamel de Oliveira, Maria Silene Alexandre Leite. 2014. Supply chain risk
classification: discussion and proposal. International Journal of Production Research 1-20. [CrossRef]
38. Florian Kache, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance in
supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6,
664-682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ila Manuj, Terry L. Esper, Theodore P. Stank. 2014. Supply Chain Risk Management Approaches
Under Different Conditions of Risk. Journal of Business Logistics 35:10.1111/jbl.2014.35.issue-3, 241-258.
[CrossRef]
40. Kebing Chen, Lei Yang. 2014. Random yield and coordination mechanisms of a supply chain with
emergency backup sourcing. International Journal of Production Research 52, 4747-4767. [CrossRef]
41. Umang Soni, Vipul Jain, Sameer Kumar. 2014. Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic
modeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 74, 11-25. [CrossRef]
42. Kumar Pradhan Sudeep, Routroy Srikanta. 2014. Analyzing the supply chain risk issues for an Indian
manufacturing company. Journal of Advances in Management Research 11:2, 144-162. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
43. Tzu-Su Li. 2014. Establishing an integrated framework for security capability development in a supply
chain. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17, 283-303. [CrossRef]
44. Sameer Kumar, Katie J. Himes, Collin P. Kritzer. 2014. Risk assessment and operational approaches to
managing risk in global supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 25:6, 873-890.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2014. Sourcing decision under disruption risk with supply and demand
uncertainty: A newsvendor approach. Annals of Operations Research . [CrossRef]
46. Olivier Lavastre, Angappa Gunasekaran, Alain Spalanzani. 2014. Effect of firm characteristics, supplier
relationships and techniques used on Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): an empirical investigation
on French industrial firms. International Journal of Production Research 52, 3381-3403. [CrossRef]
47. Daniela Grudinschi, Sanna Sintonen, Jukka Hallikas. 2014. Relationship risk perception and determinants
of the collaboration fluency of buyersupplier relationships in public service procurement. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 20, 82-91. [CrossRef]
48. Elena Revilla, Mara Jess Senz. 2014. Supply chain disruption management: Global convergence vs
national specificity. Journal of Business Research 67, 1123-1135. [CrossRef]
49. Navin K. Dev, Ravi Shankar, Roma M. Debnath. 2014. Supply chain efficiency: a simulation cum DEA
approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 72, 1537-1549. [CrossRef]
50. Hyejung Moon, Hyun Suk Cho, Seo Hwa Jeong, Jangho ParkPolicy Design Based on Risk at Big Data
Era: Case Study of Privacy Invasion in South Korea 756-759. [CrossRef]
51. Hatem Elleuch, Wafik Hachicha, Habib Chabchoub. 2014. A combined approach for supply chain risk
management: description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical case study. Journal of Risk
Research 17, 641-663. [CrossRef]
52. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2014. A model to evaluate upstream vulnerability. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17, 249-268. [CrossRef]
53. Ennouri Wissem, Frikha Ahmed, Chabchoub HabibThe approaches of supply chain risks management
155-159. [CrossRef]
54. H. K. Okyay, F. Karaesmen, S. zekici. 2014. Newsvendor models with dependent random supply and
demand. Optimization Letters 8, 983-999. [CrossRef]
55. Ikechukwu A. Diugwu, Dorothy L. Baba. 2014. A Health and Safety Improvement Roadmap for the
Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 4, 37-44. [CrossRef]
56. Andra Badea, Gabriela Prostean, Gilles Goncalves, Hamid Allaoui. 2014. Assessing Risk Factors in
Collaborative Supply Chain with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 124, 114-123. [CrossRef]
57. Joseph Mpeera Ntayi, Ephraim Mugume. 2014. A taxonomy of strategic sourcing for defense forces in
sub-Saharan Africa. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 10:1,
58. Kunal Ganguly. 2014. Integration of analytic hierarchy process and Dempster-Shafer theory for
supplier performance measurement considering risk. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
59. Luca Urciuoli, Sangeeta Mohanty, Juha Hintsa, Else Gerine Boekesteijn. 2014. The resilience of energy
supply chains: a multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:1, 46-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Xing Bao. 2014. Research on Overconfidence in Decision-Making for the Capacity Recovery of Damaged
Power Systems. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2014, 1-7. [CrossRef]
61. Mark L. Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, Carolee M. Rigsbee. 2013. Strategic human resource
management and supply chain orientation. Human Resource Management Review 23, 366-377. [CrossRef]
62. Patrick Lubbecke, Tobias Anton, Richard LackesCross-Border Risk Factors of Cloud Services: Risk
Assessment of IS Outsourcing to Foreign Cloud Service Providers 565-572. [CrossRef]
63. X. J. Fu, R. S. M. Goh, J. C. Tong, L. Ponnambalam, X. F. Yin, Z. X. Wang, H. Y. Xu, S. F. LuSocial
media for supply chain risk management 206-210. [CrossRef]
64. Daniel Ekwall, Bjrn Lantz. 2013. Seasonality of cargo theft at transport chain locations. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:9, 728-746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. Tang. 2013. Strategies and tactics of Chinese contract manufacturers
and western OEMs (20012011). International Journal of Production Economics 146, 14-24. [CrossRef]
66. Christoph Markmann, Inga-Lena Darkow, Heiko von der Gracht. 2013. A Delphi-based risk analysis
Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder environment.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 1815-1833. [CrossRef]
67. Kunal Ganguly. 2013. A case study approach for understanding inbound supply risk assessment.
DECISION 40, 85-97. [CrossRef]
68. Jain Divij, Banwet D.K.. 2013. Modelling critical elements of selection for strategic alliance partner
for network managed services using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). Journal of Modelling in
69. Jose M. Cruz. 2013. Modeling the relationship of globalized supply chains and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 73-85. [CrossRef]
70. Jury Gualandris, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2013. Product and process modularity: improving flexibility and
reducing supplier failure risk. International Journal of Production Research 51, 5757-5770. [CrossRef]
71. LI Zhengping, Tan Puay Siew, Yee Qi Ming Gabriel, Nguyen Quoc Chinh, Ong Yew Soon, Chen
XianshunA Review of Complex Systems Technologies for Supply Chain Risk Management 2783-2789.
[CrossRef]
72. Joong Y. Son, Ryan K. Orchard. 2013. Effectiveness of policies for mitigating supply disruptions.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:8, 684-706. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
73. Petra Hoffmann, Holger Schiele, Koos Krabbendam. 2013. Uncertainty, supply risk management and
their impact on performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 19, 199-211. [CrossRef]
74. Minkyun Kim, Nallan C. Suresh, Canan Kocabasoglu-Hillmer. 2013. An impact of manufacturing
flexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing strategy on improving supply chain
responsiveness: Business environment perspective. International Journal of Production Research 51,
5597-5611. [CrossRef]
75. Divesh Ojha, Peter T. Gianiodis, Ila Manuj. 2013. Impact of logistical business continuity planning on
operational capabilities and financial performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 24:2,
76. Pritee Ray, Mamata Jenamani. 2013. Sourcing under supply disruption with capacityconstrained
suppliers. Journal of Advances in Management Research 10:2, 192-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Doreen Diehl, Stefan Spinler. 2013. Defining a common ground for supply chain risk management
a case study in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 16, 311-327. [CrossRef]
78. Xiao-Feng Shao. 2013. Supply chain characteristics and disruption mitigation capability: an empirical
investigation in China. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 16, 277-295. [CrossRef]
79. Ana Cristina Barros, Ana Paula BarbosaPvoa, Edgar E. Blanco. 2013. Selection of tailored practices for
supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:8, 1040-1074.
80. Jose M. Cruz. 2013. Mitigating global supply chain risks through corporate social responsibility.
International Journal of Production Research 51, 3995-4010. [CrossRef]
81. Mohammed Laeequddin, B. S. Sahay, Vinita Sahay, K. Abdul Waheed. 2013. Supply Chain Partners
Perceptions of Trust & Risk. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management
4:10.4018/jisscm.20110101, 60-76. [CrossRef]
82. Holger SchrodlInterpreting inter-organizational information technology networks: A chaos theory
approach 157-161. [CrossRef]
83. Andreas Wieland. 2013. Selecting the right supply chain based on risks. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 24:5, 652-668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 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]
85. Atefeh Baghalian, Shabnam Rezapour, Reza Zanjirani Farahani. 2013. Robust supply chain network design
with service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: A real-life case. European Journal of
Operational Research 227, 199-215. [CrossRef]
86. Jie Chen, Amrik S. Sohal, Daniel I. Prajogo. 2013. Supply chain operational risk mitigation: a collaborative
approach. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2186-2199. [CrossRef]
87. Tadeusz Sawik. 2013. Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks. Omega 41, 259-269.
[CrossRef]
88. Avinash Samvedi, Vipul Jain, Felix T.S. Chan. 2013. Quantifying risks in a supply chain through
integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2433-2442.
[CrossRef]
89. 2013. Risk Management in Global Sourcing:. Transportation Journal 52, 80-107. [CrossRef]
90. Christoph H. Glock, Jrg M. Ries. 2013. Reducing lead time risk through multiple sourcing: the case
of stochastic demand and variable lead time. International Journal of Production Research 51, 43-56.
[CrossRef]
91. Matthew H. Smith. 2013. A Fundamental Approach to Facilities Location Risk Assessment and Its
Relevance to Supply Chain Network Design: Using the Thai Floods of 2011 as an Example. International
Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 300-303. [CrossRef]
92. Shozo Takata, Masato Yamanaka. 2013. BOM based supply chain risk management. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology 62, 479-482. [CrossRef]
93. Seung-Ok Yoon, Chang-Ho Lee. 2012. A Study on Paradigm Shift of Supply Chain Risk Management
for SMEs. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 14, 71-77. [CrossRef]
94. Yifan Wu, Ming Dong, Tijun Fan, Shaoxuan Liu. 2012. Performance evaluation of supply chain networks
with assembly structure under system disruptions. Computers & Operations Research 39, 3229-3243.
[CrossRef]
95. Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42:10, 887-905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supplemental
Material]
96. Abhijeet Ghadge, Samir Dani, Roy Kalawsky. 2012. Supply chain risk management: present and future
scope. The International Journal of Logistics Management 23:3, 313-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Dia Bandaly, Ahmet Satir, Yasemin Kahyaoglu, Latha Shanker. 2012. Supply chain risk management
I: Conceptualization, framework and planning process. Risk Management 14, 249-271. [CrossRef]
98. Grkan Sin, Kaushik Ghosh, Sathish Natarajan, Rajagopalan Srinivasan, Arief Adhitya, Iftekhar A.
Karimi, Stavros Papadokonstantakis, Konrad Hungerbhler, Per AngeloProcess Systems Engineering, 7.
Abnormal Events Management and Process Safety . [CrossRef]
99. Lingxiu Dong, Brian Tomlin. 2012. Managing Disruption Risk: The Interplay Between Operations and
Insurance. Management Science 58, 1898-1915. [CrossRef]
100. Guoquan Zhang, Xia Luo, Chengzhi SunSupply risk assessment model using hybrid weighting method
118-121. [CrossRef]
101. Davide Aloini, Riccardo Dulmin, Valeria Mininno, Simone Ponticelli. 2012. Supply chain management:
a review of implementation risks in the construction industry. Business Process Management Journal 18:5,
102. T.C.E. Cheng, F.K. Yip, A.C.L. Yeung. 2012. Supply risk management via guanxi in the Chinese business
context: The buyer's perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 139, 3-13. [CrossRef]
103. E. Simangunsong, L.C. Hendry, M. Stevenson. 2012. Supply-chain uncertainty: a review and theoretical
foundation for future research. International Journal of Production Research 50, 4493-4523. [CrossRef]
104. Anna Corinna Cagliano, Alberto De Marco, Sabrina Grimaldi, Carlo Rafele. 2012. An integrated approach
to supply chain risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research 15, 817-840. [CrossRef]
105. Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout, Shamim Bodhanya, Linda Brenchley. 2012. An analysis of collaboration
in a sugarcane production and processing supply chain. British Food Journal 114:6, 880-895. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
106. Ali Diabat, Kannan Govindan, Vinay V. Panicker. 2012. Supply chain risk management and its mitigation
in a food industry. International Journal of Production Research 50, 3039-3050. [CrossRef]
107. Jing Hou, Lindu Zhao. 2012. Backup agreements with penalty scheme under supply disruptions.
International Journal of Systems Science 43, 987-996. [CrossRef]
108. Cheng-Yuan Ku, Yi-Wen Chang. 2012. Optimal production and selling policies with fixed-price contracts
and contingent-price offers. International Journal of Production Economics 137, 94-101. [CrossRef]
109. Xiao-Feng Shao, Ming Dong. 2012. Supply Disruption and Reactive Strategies in an Assemble-toOrder Supply Chain With Time-Sensitive Demand. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59,
201-212. [CrossRef]
110. Belarmino AdensoDiaz, Carlos Mena, Santiago GarcaCarbajal, Merrill Liechty. 2012. The impact of
supply network characteristics on reliability. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:3,
111. Jesper Lyng Jensen, Claus Due Ponsaing, Sof Thrane. 2012. Risk, resources and structures: Experimental
evidence of a new cost of risk component The structural risk component and implications for enterprise
risk management. Risk Management 14, 152-175. [CrossRef]
112. Amit Raj Singh, P. K. Mishra, Rajeev Jain, M. K. Khurana. 2012. Design of global supply chain network
with operational risks. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60, 273-290.
[CrossRef]
113. KwangSup Shin, YongWoo Shin, Ji-Hye Kwon, Suk-Ho Kang. 2012. Development of risk based dynamic
backorder replenishment planning framework using Bayesian Belief Network. Computers & Industrial
Engineering 62, 716-725. [CrossRef]
114. Archie Lockamy III, Kevin McCormack. 2012. Modeling supplier risks using Bayesian networks.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:2, 313-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Xiao-Feng Shao. 2012. Demand-side reactive strategies for supply disruptions in a multiple-product
system. International Journal of Production Economics 136, 241-252. [CrossRef]
116. Evi Hartmann, Dieter Kerkfeld, Michael Henke. 2012. Top and bottom line relevance of purchasing and
supply management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18, 22-34. [CrossRef]
117. Seyed Hessameddin Zegordi, Hoda Davarzani. 2012. Developing a supply chain disruption analysis model:
Application of colored Petri-nets. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 2102-2111. [CrossRef]
118. Helena Carvalho, Ana P. Barroso, Virgnia H. Machado, Susana Azevedo, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. Supply
chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62, 329-341. [CrossRef]
119. Daniel Kern, Roger Moser, Evi Hartmann, Marco Moder. 2012. Supply risk management: model
development and empirical analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
120. ChungYean Chiang, Canan KocabasogluHillmer, Nallan Suresh. 2012. An empirical investigation of
the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm's supply chain agility. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 32:1, 49-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
121. Behzad Behdani, Arief Adhitya, Zofia Lukszo, Rajagopalan SrinivasanMitigating Supply Disruption for
a Global Chemical Supply Chain-Application of Agent-based Modeling 1070-1074. [CrossRef]
122. Guojun Ji, Caihong Zhu. 2012. A Study on Emergency Supply Chain and Risk Based on Urgent Relief
Service in Disasters. Systems Engineering Procedia 5, 313-325. [CrossRef]
123. Anupam Haldar, Debamalya Banerjee, Amitava Ray, Surojit Ghosh. 2012. An Integrated Approach for
Supplier Selection. Procedia Engineering 38, 2087-2102. [CrossRef]
124. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Byung-Gak Son, Christopher S. Tang. 2012. Researchers' Perspectives on Supply
Chain Risk Management. Production and Operations Management 21:10.1111/poms.2011.21.issue-1,
1-13. [CrossRef]
125. Kooyul Jung, Youngdeok Lim, Joongsan Oh. 2011. A Model for Measuring Supplier Risk: Do Operational
Capability Indicators Enhance the Prediction Accuracy of Supplier Risk?. British Journal of Management
22:10.1111/bjom.2011.22.issue-4, 609-627. [CrossRef]
126. LeeChoongBae, . 2011. Risk Management Strategies for Global Food Supply Chain. Korean Journal
of Logistics 19, 105-124. [CrossRef]
127. Jennifer Blackhurst, Kaitlin S. Dunn, Christopher W. Craighead. 2011. An Empirically Derived
Framework of Global Supply Resiliency. Journal of Business Logistics 32:10.1111/jbl.2011.32.issue-4,
374-391. [CrossRef]
128. Helga Drummond. 2011. MIS and illusions of control: an analysis of the risks of risk management. Journal
of Information Technology 26, 259-267. [CrossRef]
129. H. Davarzani, S.H. Zegordi, A. Norrman. 2011. Contingent management of supply chain disruption:
Effects of dual or triple sourcing. Scientia Iranica 18, 1517-1528. [CrossRef]
130. Claudia Colicchia, Fabrizio Dallari, Marco Melacini. 2011. A simulation-based framework to evaluate
strategies for managing global inbound supply risk. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 14, 371-384. [CrossRef]
131. Isabel L. Nunes, S. Figueira, V. Cruz MachadoEvaluation of a supply chain performance using a Fuzzy
Decision Support System 1735-1739. [CrossRef]
132. Avinash Samvedi, Vipul JainStudying the impact of various inventory policies on a supply chain with
intermittent supply disruptions 1636-1644. [CrossRef]
133. P.L. Meena, S.P. Sarmah, A. Sarkar. 2011. Sourcing decisions under risks of catastrophic event disruptions.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47, 1058-1074. [CrossRef]
134. Kenan Arifolu, Sleyman zekici. 2011. Inventory management with random supply and imperfect
information: A hidden Markov model. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 123-137.
[CrossRef]
135. Ying Kei Tse, Kim Hua Tan, Sai Ho Chung, Ming Kim Lim. 2011. Quality risk in global supply network.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22:8, 1002-1013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Changhe Yuan, Feng Cheng, Henry Dao, Markus Ettl, Grace Lin, Karthik SourirajanA Bayesian
Framework for Supply Chain Risk Management Using Business Process Standards 537-564. [CrossRef]
137. Jose M. Cruz, Zugang Liu. 2011. Modeling and analysis of the multiperiod effects of social relationship
on supply chain networks. European Journal of Operational Research 214, 39-52. [CrossRef]
138. Jrn-Henrik Thun, Martin Drke, Daniel Hoenig. 2011. Managing uncertainty an empirical analysis of
supply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Production
Research 49, 5511-5525. [CrossRef]
139. Ran Bhamra, Samir Dani, Kevin Burnard. 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future
directions. International Journal of Production Research 49, 5375-5393. [CrossRef]
140. Ou Tang, S. Nurmaya Musa. 2011. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk
management. International Journal of Production Economics 133, 25-34. [CrossRef]
141. Brad Hittle, Karen Moustafa Leonard. 2011. Decision making in advance of a supply chain crisis.
Management Decision 49:7, 1182-1193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Enrico Cagno, Guido J L Micheli. 2011. Enhancing EPC supply chain competitiveness through
procurement risk management. Risk Management 13, 147-180. [CrossRef]
143. Uta Jttner, Stan Maklan. 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:4, 246-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
144. References 437-447. [CrossRef]
145. Chiara Verbano, Karen Venturini. 2011. Development paths of risk management: approaches, methods
and fields of application. Journal of Risk Research 14, 519-550. [CrossRef]
146. Jrn-Henrik Thun, Daniel Hoenig. 2011. An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the
German automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 131, 242-249. [CrossRef]
147. Elleuch Hatem, Chabchoub HabibRisks management in the downstream pharmaceutical supply chain:
A study on the teaching hospital Habib Bourguiba Sfax 335-340. [CrossRef]
148. SCOTT C. ELLIS, JEFF SHOCKLEY, RAYMOND M. HENRY. 2011. MAKING SENSE OF
SUPPLY DISRUPTION RISK RESEARCH: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GROUNDED IN
ENACTMENT THEORY. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47, 65-96. [CrossRef]
149. Tadeusz Sawik. 2011. Selection of a dynamic supply portfolio in make-to-order environment withrisks.
Computers & Operations Research 38, 782-796. [CrossRef]
150. Erik Hofmann. 2011. Natural hedging as a risk prophylaxis and supplier financing instrument in
automotive supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:2, 128-141. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
151. ManMohan S. Sodhi, Christopher S. TangSupply Chain Risk Management . [CrossRef]
152. Julie E. Gould, Cathy Macharis, Hans-Dietrich Haasis. 2010. Emergence of security in supply chain
management literature. Journal of Transportation Security 3, 287-302. [CrossRef]
153. A.P. Barroso, V.H. Machado, A.R. Barros, V. Cruz MachadoToward a resilient Supply Chain with supply
disturbances 245-249. [CrossRef]
154. Jing Hou, Amy Z. Zeng, Lindu Zhao. 2010. Coordination with a backup supplier through buy-back
contract under supply disruption. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46,
881-895. [CrossRef]
155. Shengzhong Zhang, Qian LiA Review of Supply Chain Risk Management: From the Perspective of
Default Correlation 111-115. [CrossRef]
156. George A. Zsidisin, Stephan M. Wagner. 2010. DO PERCEPTIONS BECOME REALITY? THE
MODERATING ROLE OF SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY ON DISRUPTION OCCURRENCE.
Journal of Business Logistics 31:10.1002/jbl.2010.31.issue-2, 1-20. [CrossRef]
157. C. Clifford Defee, Brent Williams, Wesley S. Randall, Rodney Thomas. 2010. An inventory of theory in
logistics and SCM research. The International Journal of Logistics Management 21:3, 404-489. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
158. F Badurdeen, K Wijekoon, M Shuaib, T J Goldsby, D Iyengar, I S JawahirIntegrated modeling to enhance
resilience in sustainable supply chains . [CrossRef]
159. Stephan M. Wagner, Nikrouz Neshat. 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph
theory. International Journal of Production Economics 126, 121-129. [CrossRef]
160. Cheng-Chang Chang, Dah-Chuan GongA comparison of RoHS risk assessment using the Logistic
Regression Model and Artificial Neural Network Model 1396-1401. [CrossRef]
161. Xin Cheng, Ning ZhangCooperation between enterprises: A research on emergency mechanisms under
disruptions 236-240. [CrossRef]
162. Shuguang Liu, Jun Lin, Karen A. Hayes. 2010. An agile and diversified supply chain: reducing operational
risks. Competitiveness Review 20:3, 222-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
163. Hans-Christian Pfohl, Holger Khler, David Thomas. 2010. State of the art in supply chain risk
management research: empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the implementation in
practice. Logistics Research 2, 33-44. [CrossRef]
164. Afsaneh Noori Houshyar, Muriati Muktar, Riza SulaimanSimulating the effect of supply chain risk and
disruption: &34;A Malaysian case study&34; 1362-1367. [CrossRef]
165. Jrg von Kanel, Eric W. Cope, La A. Deleris, Nitin Nayak, Robert G. Torok. 2010. Three key enablers to
successful enterprise risk management. IBM Journal of Research and Development 54, 1:1-1:15. [CrossRef]
166. Jose M. Cruz. 2009. The impact of corporate social responsibility in supply chain management:
Multicriteria decision-making approach. Decision Support Systems 48, 224-236. [CrossRef]
167. A.P. Barroso, V.H. Machado, V. Cruz MachadoIdentifying vulnerabilities in the supply chain 1444-1448.
[CrossRef]
168. I. Nyoman Pujawan, Laudine H. Geraldin. 2009. House of risk: a model for proactive supply chain risk
management. Business Process Management Journal 15:6, 953-967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
169. Divesh Ojha, Rahul A. Gokhale. 2009. Logistical business continuity planningscale development and
validation. The International Journal of Logistics Management 20:3, 342-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
170. Zhi Luan, Charlene Xie, Lizhen Duan, Zhengjiao Wang, Yun XiongRisk Identification Based on OEM
Supply Chain 1-4. [CrossRef]
171. Malini Natarajarathinam, Ismail Capar, Arunachalam Narayanan. 2009. Managing supply chains in times
of crisis: a review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
172. Gyngyi Kovcs, Karen Spens. 2009. Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39:6, 506-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
173. Mohammed Laeequddin, G.D. Sardana, B.S. Sahay, K. Abdul Waheed, Vinita Sahay. 2009. Supply chain
partners' trust building process through risk evaluation: the perspectives of UAE packaged food industry.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:4, 280-290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
174. Dennis Degeneffe, Jean Kinsey, Thomas Stinson, Koel Ghosh. 2009. Segmenting consumers for food
defense communication strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
175. Geoffrey T. Stewart, Ramesh Kolluru, Mark Smith. 2009. Leveraging publicprivate partnerships to
improve community resilience in times of disaster. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
176. Peter Trkman, Kevin McCormack. 2009. Supply chain risk in turbulent environmentsA conceptual
model for managing supply chain network risk. International Journal of Production Economics 119,
247-258. [CrossRef]
177. Josef Oehmen, Arne Ziegenbein, Robert Alard, Paul Schnsleben. 2009. System-oriented supply chain
risk management. Production Planning & Control 20, 343-361. [CrossRef]
178. Serhiy Y. Ponomarov, Mary C. Holcomb. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 20:1, 124-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
179. Shashank Rao, Thomas J. Goldsby. 2009. Supply chain risks: a review and typology. The International
Journal of Logistics Management 20:1, 97-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
180. A. Michael Knemeyer, Walter Zinn, Cuneyt Eroglu. 2009. Proactive planning for catastrophic events in
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 27, 141-153. [CrossRef]
181. Dina Neiger, Kristian Rotaru, Leonid Churilov. 2009. Supply chain risk identification with value-focused
process engineering. Journal of Operations Management 27, 154-168. [CrossRef]
182. Adegoke Oke, Mohan Gopalakrishnan. 2009. Managing disruptions in supply chains: A case study of a
retail supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 118, 168-174. [CrossRef]
183. Peter W. Stonebraker, Joel Goldhar, George Nassos. 2009. Weak links in the supply chain: measuring
fragility and sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20:2, 161-177. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
184. J. M. Cruz, D. Matsypura. 2009. Supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility through
integrated environmental decision-making. International Journal of Production Research 47, 621-648.
[CrossRef]
185. Arif Khan K, Rajesh K. Pillania. 2008. Strategic sourcing for supply chain agility and firms' performance.
Management Decision 46:10, 1508-1530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
186. Doan A. Serel. 2008. Inventory and pricing decisions in a single-period problem involving risky supply.
International Journal of Production Economics 116, 115-128. [CrossRef]
187. Jose M. Cruz, Tina Wakolbinger. 2008. Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on supply
chain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk. International Journal of Production Economics 116,
61-74. [CrossRef]
188. Stefan Seuring, Martin Mller. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1699-1710. [CrossRef]
189. Lei Yu, Kimmo Suojapelto, Jukka Hallikas, Ou Tang. 2008. Chinese ICT industry from supply chain
perspectiveA case study of the major Chinese ICT players. International Journal of Production Economics
115, 374-387. [CrossRef]
190. Xiaohong Li, Ian Barnes. 2008. Proactive supply risk management methods for building a robust supply
selection process when sourcing from emerging markets. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal
191. Guido J.L. Micheli, Enrico Cagno, Marta Zorzini. 2008. Supply risk management vs supplier selection to
manage the supply risk in the EPC supply chain. Management Research News 31:11, 846-866. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
192. Zachary Williams, Jason E. Lueg, Stephen A. LeMay. 2008. Supply chain security: an overview and
research agenda. The International Journal of Logistics Management 19:2, 254-281. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
193. Thomas J. Kull, Srinivas Talluri. 2008. A Supply Risk Reduction Model Using Integrated Multicriteria
Decision Making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55, 409-419. [CrossRef]
194. Cunlu Zhang, Yangfan LinRisk control of book supply chain: A case study 1-5. [CrossRef]
195. David E. Cantor. 2008. Workplace safety in the supply chain: a review of the literature and call for research.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 19:1, 65-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
196. Ila Manuj, John T. Mentzer. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:3, 192-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
197. Jennifer V. Blackhurst, Kevin P. Scheibe, Danny J. Johnson. 2008. Supplier risk assessment and monitoring
for the automotive industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:2,
198. Jose M. Cruz. 2008. Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility through
integrated environmental decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research 184, 1005-1031.
[CrossRef]
199. Jianxin XuManaging the Risk of Supply Chain Disruption: Towards a Resilient Approach of Supply
Chain Management 3-7. [CrossRef]
200. M S Sodhi, S Lee. 2007. An analysis of sources of risk in the consumer electronics industry. Journal of
the Operational Research Society 58, 1430-1439. [CrossRef]
201. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2007. Information risks management in supply chains:
an assessment and mitigation framework. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20:6, 677-699.
202. Maria Holmlund. 2007. Suggesting and Comparing Different Scopes on Quality Management:
Production, Service, Relationship, and Network. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 18,
847-859. [CrossRef]
203. T. Tynjl, E. Eloranta. 2007. Investigating the effect of product variants, and demand distributions on
the optimal demand supply network setup. Production Planning & Control 18, 561-572. [CrossRef]
204. Lei Wen, Zhaocai XiSupply Chain Risk Evaluation Based on Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Lattice-Order
Decision-Making 1442-1445. [CrossRef]
205. Martha C. Wilson. 2007. The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 43, 295-320. [CrossRef]
206. Ghaleb Y Abbasi, Nisreen A Sandouqa, Mohammad D Al-Tahat, Adnan M Mukattash. 2007. A Look
Into Jordan's Large Manufacturing Industries' Risks. Risk Management 9, 108-117. [CrossRef]
207. Stephan M. Wagner, Christoph Bode. 2006. An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12, 301-312. [CrossRef]
208. Jose M. Cruz, Anna Nagurney, Tina Wakolbinger. 2006. Financial engineering of the integration of global
supply chain networks and social networks with risk management. Naval Research Logistics 53:10.1002/
nav.v53:7, 674-696. [CrossRef]
209. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2006. Mapping supply chains on risk and customer
sensitivity dimensions. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:6, 878-895. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
210. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the
enablers. Business Process Management Journal 12:4, 535-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
211. Abbas Foroughi, Marvin Albin, Mehmet KocakulahPerspectives on Global Supply Chain Supply-Side
Risk Management 2732-2740. [CrossRef]
212. Mohd. Laeequddin, B. S. Sahay, Vinita Sahay, K. Abdul WaheedSupply Chain Partners Perceptions of
Trust & Risk 48-65. [CrossRef]
213. Iwan Vanany, Suhaiza Zailani, Nyoman PujawanSupply Chain Risk Management 15-32. [CrossRef]
214. Samir DaniManaging Risk in Virtual Enterprise Networks 72-91. [CrossRef]
215. Ruslan Klimov, Yuri Merkuryev, Juri TolujewA Theoretical Framework for a Simulation-Based Analysis
of Supply Chain Risk Management 162-183. [CrossRef]
216. Guo Li, Xiang Zhang, Zhaohua WangMonitoring and Warning Mechanisms of Supply Coordination in
Assembly System under Delivery Uncertainty 155-181. [CrossRef]
217. Jan HusdalA Conceptual Framework for Risk and Vulnerability in Virtual Enterprise Networks 1-27.
[CrossRef]

Ericsson's Proactive Supply Chain

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ericsson's Proactive Supply Chain

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Downloaded by Wayne State University At 18:32 05 November 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at