While supply chain resilience has been touched upon frequently, research remains (with the exception of often repeated anecdotal examples) relatively disparate on what disruptions actually are. This research aims to advance theoretical and managerial understandings around the management of supply chain disruptions. A two-stage research process is used which focuses first on polling academic experts. This stage is followed by the extraction of insights from practitioners in the automotive, electronics and food industries. Our findings coalesce around: (1) the types of disruptions that respondents are most concerned about; (2) the associated strategies suggested to cope with disruptions; and, (3) how resilience can be measured. It is apparent that there are some areas where academics and practitioners agree and others where they agree to a lesser extent. Both sets of actors tend to agree on how resilience can be quantified, with recovery time the preferred indicator. However, there is a discrepancy around how resilience is achieved within the supply chain. Academics emphasise the importance of redundancy while practitioners refer more to flexibility. Also, they disagree around what constitutes “key disruptions”: academics suggested high-profile events, while practitioners are more concerned with day-to-day problems.
|Title of host publication||Revisiting Supply Chain Risk|
|Editors||George A. Zsidisin, Michael Henke|
|Place of Publication||Cham|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|
|Name||Springer Series in Supply Chain Management|