A TAXONOMY FOR CATEGORIZING SUPPLY CHAIN EVENTS: STRATEGIES FOR ADRRESSING SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS

A TAXONOMY FOR CATEGORIZING SUPPLY CHAIN EVENTS: STRATEGIES FOR ADRRESSING SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS Richard W. Monroe, East Carolina University College of Technology and Computer Science, Greenville, NC 27858 MonroeR@ecu.edu; (252) 328-9611 Jay M. Teets, Coastal Carolina University E. Craig Wall Sr. College of Business, Conway, SC 29528 JayT@coastal.edu P. Richard Martin, Coastal Carolina University E. Craig Wall Sr. College of Business, Conway, SC 29528 PRmartin@coastal.edu Abstract Supply chain disruptions have become a topic of interest for academic researchers in the last decade. This interest has been motivated by real world events which have caused major disruptions around the world in the global supply chains for many major companies. Given the actual events that have occurred, there is an obvious interest on the part of supply chain practitioners as well. This paper will review and update the list of literature on supply chain disruptions for the past ten years. By analyzing the literature, this paper will also propose a taxonomy to organize the literature on supply chain disruptions. Dimensions for the taxonomy will be derived from the subtopics or perspectives that are identified in the literature review. Introduction A number of publications have addressed the topic of supply chain strategies. Fisher (1997) published a widely cited article which looked at strategies along two major dimensions functional products and innovative products. Fisher s approach also looked at the predictability of demand and the length of the product lifecycle (Fisher, 1997). Christopher and Towill (2002) followed the lead of Fisher and added another factor for short or long lead-time for products. Christopher, Peck and Towill (2006) followed the same basic schema utilizing two key dimensions replenishment lead-times and predictability/variability of demand. Their ultimate end result was the association of the key dimensions with four Resulting Pipelines or four supply chain strategies: Lean using Continuous Replenishment given Short Lead-times plus Predictable Demand; Agile emphasizing Quick Response associated with Short Lead-times plus Unpredictable Demand; Lean emphasizing Planning and Execution given Long Lead-times plus Predictable Demand; and Leagile which emphasizes both elimination of waste and quick response for both Production and Logistics (i.e., Postponement) associated with Long Lead-times plus Unpredictable Demand (Christopher, Peck and Towill, 2006).

This literature provides a glimpse at supply chain strategies but does not address supply chain disruptions explicitly. For this paper the supply chain strategy literature will serve to inform and guide our research and to assist with organizing the literature on supply chain disruptions. Potential supply chain disruption classifications and/or categorizations include (but are not limited to): Type or category of industrial/manufacturing operations, i.e. product, process, or project; Degree of technology integration in the supply chain, i.e. information technology defines the supply chain vs. information teachnology used for supply chain administration and support. Degree of supply chain disruption along a continuum. Literature Review The majority of the literature on supply chain disruptions has been published since the year 2000 which corresponds with a greater frequency of real world events which caused disruptions. In 2004, there was an increase in the number of articles published on the topic which can be partially attributed to the length of time to gather data and the review process for the articles. Christopher and Peck (2004) deal with supply chain disruptions in their discussion about building resiliency into the supply chain. Sheffi (2005) and Sheffi and Rice (2005) also advocate resiliency and discuss individual examples of supply chain disruptions. Lee (2004) proposes agility as a potential remedy for supply chain disruptions and also provides details about several example cases. As a preliminary review of the literature we take just a few articles to look at some examples of supply chain disruptions. Table 1 summarizes a sample of supply chain disruptions as seen in just these few articles: Table 1. Sample of Supply Chain Disruption Events described in Literature Authors (Year) Date of Disruption Scenario or Event Christopher & Peck (2004) September 2000 U.K. Fuel price protests Christopher & Peck (2004) February 2001 Outbreak of Foot & Mouth disease in U.K. cattle Christopher & Peck (2004) September 2001 U.S. Terrorist Attacks Sheffi (2005) March 2000 Philips lightning strike and fire in New Mexico plant Lee (2004) March 2000 Philips lightning strike and fire in New Mexico plant Lee (2004) 1999 Taiwan earthquake delayed computer component shipments Lee (2004) 2001 9/11 Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. Lee (2004) 2002 Dockworkers (Longshoremen) strike at LA/Long Beach Ports Lee (2004) 2003 SARS outbreak in Asia

Supply chain risk management is a very broad topic which includes supply chain disruptions as a subcategory. The definition of supply chain risk management (SCRM) has gained significant support in the literature as being: the identification of potential sources of risk and implementation of appropriate strategies through a coordinated approach among supply chain members, to reduce supply chain vulnerability (Jüttner, Peck and Christopher, 2003; Jüttner, 2005; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009). Risk of supply chain disruptions is described by Hendricks and Singhal (2005a) as an indication of a firm s inability to match demand and supply. Christopher and Lee (2004) suggest that the increased vulnerability of supply chains to disturbance or disruption can be attributed to: External events such as wars, strikes or terrorist attacks, and The impact of changes in business strategies such as o Lean business practices o Increased outsourcing decisions, and o Initiatives to reduce the supplier base (Christopher and Lee, 2004). Tang and Tomlin (2008) also point to a variety of initiatives which have made supply chains more vulnerable to disruptions including: Increased product variety, frequent product introductions and a greater number of sales channels/markets Supply base reduction, use of online procurement options (i.e. e-markets and online auctions), and Outsourcing of several functions including manufacturing, information services and logistics. Under stable conditions the initiatives can be very successful but given the turbulent environment the risk of disruption is magnified. These initiatives have created supply chains that are much longer and more complex which makes them more susceptible to disruptions (Tang and Tomlin, 2008). Industry studies have also found that companies recognize the vulnerability of their supply chains and are concerned about that vulnerability (AMR, 2006; Tang and Tomlin, 2008). Supply chain wide risk management is not yet recognised as a key element in business continuity planning (Juttner et al. 2003). That statement portrays the state of SCRM as it was almost ten years ago. The literature described in this paper will indicate that some progress has been made but much more needs to be done to identify, assess and mitigate the risk of supply chain disruptions. As we launched this research project, the first question was: which leading journals are publishing supply chain disruption articles? We conducted searches for supply chain disruptions, supply chain risk, and supply chain risk management utilizing Google Scholar to answer this question. Google Scholar attempts to rate the literature in the same ways that researchers do. Google scholar weighs the full text of each document, where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature (GoogleScholar website). A summary of journals is provided in Table 2 for our primary search results for supply chain disruptions :

Table 2. Journals Ranked by number of Supply chain disruptions returned by Google Scholar Search Journal Count of Authors and Years Articles IJLM 6 Sheffi (2001), Croxton et al. (2001), Christopher and Peck (2004), Jüttner (2005), Khan and Burnes (2007), Rao and Goldsby (2009) IJPDLM 6 Christopher and Lee (2004), Norrman and Janssen (2004), Guinipero et al. (2004), Peck (2005), Hale and Moberg (2005), Carter and Rogers (2008) IJPE 6 Minner (2003), Lee and Whang (2005), Tang (2006a), Xiao et al (2007), Tang and Tomlin (2008), Oke and Gopolakrishnan (2009) JOM 5 on topic (6 in results) Choi and Hartley (1996), Hendricks and Singhal (2003), Hendricks and Singhal (2009), Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009), Neiger et al. (2009) IJL: Research and Applications 3 Jüttner, et al (2003), Tang (2006b), Peck (2006) Management Science 3 Hendricks and Singhal (2005b), Tomlin (2006), Yang et al (2009) POM 3 Hendricks and Singhal (2005a), Kleindorfer and Saad (2005), Kouvelis et al. (2006), Decision Sciences 2 Frohlich (2002), Craighead et al. (2007) IJPR 2 Blackhurst et al. (2005), Wu et al. (2007) JBL 2 Wagner and Bode (2008), Pettit et al (2010) Journal of Purchasing & Supply 2 Wagner and Bode (2006), Schoenherrr et al (2008) Management JSCM 2 Sengupta et al (2006), Roth et al (2008) MIT Sloan Mgt Review 2 Chopra and Sodhi (2004), Levy (1997) HBR 2 Lee (2004), Slone et al (2007) The top 100 articles returned by a search of Google Scholar were reviewed to obtain the article counts by journal. The results in Table 2 list 46 articles which appeared in the 14 journals with two or more articles published. Among the 100 articles the total number of different journals was 43. Other formats included in the search results were: 7 different books, 4 items as citations only, 2 working papers and 1 master s thesis. Two journals were removed from the table because the articles did not address supply chain disruptions specifically. Several important elements of supply chain risk management emerge from the literature. There are four main elements for organizing descriptive information about supply chain risk and supply chain disruptions: Probability and Impact Sources of Risk Approaches for Assessing Risks Strategies for Mitigating Risks The remainder of the paper is organized to discuss each of the four elements that we see commonly in the literature. We will also tabulate a sample of the literature to indicate which articles include sections on each of the four common themes.

Probability and Impact A simplified definition of risk can be stated as Risk = Probability of a Loss times the Impact of that Loss (Manuj and Mentzer, 2008b). This basic definition leads to our first descriptor - probability and impact which is commonly presented in the form of a 2x2 matrix. Bhattacharya, Geraghty, and Young (2009) use the low probability-high impact (LPHI) designation throughout their paper and they focus primarily on events that fit the LPHI quadrant. The organization for their perspective can be depicted in a 2x2 matrix as follows: Low Impact High Impact High Probability of occurrence HPLI HPHI Low Probability of occurrence LPLI LPHI In general, the LPHI quadrant has received the largest share of attention by researchers. Examples of authors addressing this quadrant include: Bhattacharya, Geraghty & Young, 2009 (use the LPHI designation as primary topic) Christopher & Lee, 2004 (SARS; dock strike) Knemeyer, Zinn, & Eroglu, 2009 Kleindorfer & Saad, 2005 Sheffi & Rice, 2005 (terrorism, earthquakes, supplier bankruptcy, & blizzard) Tang, 2006b (hurricane, terrorism, supplier insolvency) Sheffi and Rice (2005) utilize a similar perspective but use slightly different terminology. Sheffi & Rice (2005) use the following 2x2 matrix to label their view of supply chain vulnerability: High Disruption Probability Low Disruption Probability Light Consequences Low Vulnerability Severe Consequences High Vulnerability Sheffi and Rice do attempt to provide examples in each of the four quadrants as seen in the following matrix: High Disruption Probability Low Disruption Probability Light Consequences Sheffi & Rice (2005) suggest single port closure and transportation link disruption as examples in this quadrant. Sheffi & Rice (2005) suggest computer virus, wind damage, flood and workplace violence as examples in this quadrant. Severe Consequences Sheffi & Rice (2005) suggest loss of key supplier, labor unrest, economic recession, and visible quality problems as examples in this quadrant. Sheffi & Rice (2005) suggest terrorism, earthquakes, supplier bankruptcy, & blizzard as examples in this quadrant. A different variation of this type of matrix was summarized by the Supply Chain Digest editorial staff in 2008. Their version was an attempt to look at a broader range of probabilities and impacts within the supply chain and then depict that accordingly. The following matrix is an adapted depiction of the table produced by Supply Chain Digest from that effort:

Business Impact Low Medium High Likelihood High Yellow Red Red Of Medium Green Yellow Red Occurrence Low Green Green Yellow Sources: Kinaxis white paper, 2009 based on Supply Chain Digest, 2008 The color-coding which is included in this format can be interpreted as a supply chain current threat level similar to the system we are familiar with for U.S. Homeland Security. The color green is associated with the lowest likelihoods and the lowest impacts and indicates the companies in these cells are on Go for supply chain activity. The color yellow is associated with combinations which warrant a moderate level of vulnerability and indicates Caution. The color red indicates a high level of vulnerability due to the combinations involved and indicates a potential Emergency situation. This matrix does provide a greater range for assessing vulnerabilities which do not fit into the more black and white 2x2 matrices shown above. Going a step further in the level of detail, Engelhardt-Nowitzki and Zsifkovits (2006) use a 5x5 matrix with more breakdowns for both probability and impact. Their Risk Level Classification system follows: Probability Frequent Likely Occasional Seldom Unlikely Critical Extremely High Extremely High High High Medium Serious Extremely High High High Medium Medium Impact Moderate High Medium Medium Medium Low Minor Medium Medium Medium Low Low Negligible Medium Low Low Low Low Source: Engelhardt-Nowitzki and Zsifkovits, 2006. Note that we have added the color-coding to the 5x5 cells since the shading in the published version by the original authors was gray-scale. This matrix provides many more combinations to consider. It should be noted that 8 out of 25 cells would have the company on high alert or in disaster recovery mode (i.e. cells for High and Extremely High ). By comparison 7 out of 25 cells are classified at a Low Risk Level and 10 out of 25 are classified as Medium Risk Level. In this section we have described four different matrices for classifying supply chain risk levels. Managers must decide which matrix is best-suited for assessing supply chain risk within their companies. Managers may also ask whether developing more detailed matrices to evaluate risk will afford sufficient benefit to warrant the effort that is required. Sources of Risk The second descriptor that is frequently seen in the literature is Sources of Risk (or Dimensions of Risk or Scope of Risk ). This portion of the supply chain risk literature attempts to identify and describe the primary sources of risk in the supply network. Christopher (2011) provides a list of five main sources of risk and Sodhi, Son and Tang (2011) summarize the sources of risk taken from several articles. We list the sources of risk from a sampling of those authors in Table 3:

Table 3. Sample List of Articles including Sources of Risk (most recent publication date first) Author(s) Sources of Risk (or scope of risk) Christopher (2011) Trent and Roberts (2010) Wagner and Bode (2008) Tang and Tomlin (2008) Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) Khan and Burnes (2007) Wagner and Bode (2006) Kersten et al. (2006) Jüttner (2005) Christopher and Peck (2004) Five sources, (1) process, (2) control, (3) demand, (4) supply, and (5) environmental - [same as appeared in Christopher and Peck (2004)] Four disruption risk categories: (1) Operational risk, including equipment failure, abrupt discontinuity of supply, labor strikes, and quality issues; (2) Natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes; (3) Terrorism or political instability; (4) Commercial or market risk, including shifting demand and supply patterns and unexpected increases in prices (1) Demand side, (2) Supply side, (3) Regulatory, legal and bureaucratic, (4) Infrastructure, and (5) Catastrophic Six categories for rare-but-severe disruptions, (1) supply, (2) process, (3) demand, (4) intellectual property, (5) behavioral risks and (6) political/social risks Eight categories, (1) supply, (2) operational, (3) demand, (4) security, (5) macro, (6) policy, (7) competitive, and (8) resource risks Four families of 19 risk factors: (1) infrastructure; (2) business controls; (3) business values; and (4) relationships Three sources, (1) supply-side, (2) demand-side, and (3) catastrophic (1) process, (2) control, (3) demand, (4) supply, and (5) environmental [Citing Christopher and Peck (2004)] Supply, Demand and Environmental Five risks, (1) process, (2) control, (3) demand, (4) supply, and (5) environmental Table adapted from Sodhi, Son and Tang (2011) For the reader who wants to learn more about ten other articles with different variations on sources of risk, we recommend the article by Sodhi, Son and Tang (2011). From this list of articles we see some agreement but we also see a wide variety of hypothesized sources of risk. A separate analysis by this paper s authors found 39 individual sources of risk discussed in a sample of 20 articles on the topic of SCRM (Monroe, et al., 2012). That would indicate a somewhat fragmented view of sources of risk by researchers. Approaches for Assessing Risk Assessing risk is an intermediate phase prior to the implementation of a strategy. There are some common basic elements but again we see some variety from different sources. We offer a few examples here. Jüttner et al. (2003) proposed the basic risk analysis steps as follows:

1. Assessing the risk sources for the supply chain; 2. Defining the supply chain adverse consequences; 3. Identifying the risk drivers; and 4. Mitigating risks for the supply chain (Jüttner et al., 2003; Rao and Goldsby, 2009). Harland et al. (2003) propose the supply network risk tool which includes six different phases: 1. Map supply network a. Structure of actors b. Key measures c. Ownership 2. Identify risk and its current location a. Type b. Potential loss 3. Assess risk a. Likelihood of occurrence b. Stage in lifecycle c. Exposure d. Likely triggers e. Likely loss 4. Manage risk a. Develop risk position b. Develop scenarios 5. Form collaborative supply network risk strategy 6. Implement supply network risk strategy Sheffi and Rice (2005) advocate assessing vulnerability by asking the following three questions: 1. What can go wrong? 2. What is the likelihood of that happening? 3. What are the consequences if it does happen? Strategies for Mitigating Risks A number of articles address strategies in some manner. We will highlight a few of those and then talk about a common perspective found in the broader group of articles. Jüttner et al. (2003) conduct an extensive field study with a wide range of industries to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and to begin to understand the consequences of disruptions. One of their contributions was a list of four risk mitigating strategies as follows: 1. Avoidance 2. Control 3. Cooperation 4. Flexibility The latter three strategies are further subdivided. For example, Flexibility is composed of three more detailed approaches: Postponement, Mulitple Sourcing and Localised Sourcing (Jüttner et al., 2003). Chopra and Sodhi (2004) offer eight basic mitigation strategies: 1. Add capacity

2. Add inventory 3. Have redundant suppliers 4. Increase responsiveness 5. Increase flexibility 6. Aggregate or pool demand 7. Increase capability 8. Have more customer accounts Their list of strategies focuses primarily on the supply-side and the demand-side for sources of risk. The environment and other possible sources of risk are not considered. Tang (2006b) discusses robust strategies and he describes nine (9) different strategies: 1. Postponement 2. Strategic stock 3. Flexible supply base 4. Make-and-Buy 5. Economic supply incentives 6. Flexible transportation 7. Revenue management 8. Dynamic assortment planning 9. Silent product rollover We refer the reader to the Tang (2006b) article for a more detailed discussion on each of these strategies. Manuj and Mentzer (2008a) identify six (6) different strategies from their qualitative study and with support from the earlier literature: 1. Postponement 2. Speculation 3. Hedging 4. Control/share/transfer 5. Security, and 6. Avoidance From this sample of articles we can see that Postponement has been advocated multiple times and Flexibility also appears with regular frequency. From the broader group of articles we also see flexibility, agility, and resilience as mitigating strategies or recovery strategies (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Lee, 2004; Sheffi, 2005; Sheffi and Rice, 2005). There appears to be more commonality in the mitigating strategies that appear in the literature when compared with sources of risk and the variety seen there. However, the longer the list of strategies the more divergent the strategies become. Supply-side risk and demand-side risks also seem to receive the most attention in the strategies that are discussed. That leaves a broad segment of sources of risk that has not been adequately addressed.

One area that does deserve more discussion is the distinction between mitigating strategies and recovery strategies. The difference between pre-disruption and post-disruption needs to be considered as research goes forward. Classification of Selected Articles We have discussed a few example articles which address one or more of the four common themes that we identified in the literature. Table 4 shows in summary form which articles include material related to specific common themes: Table 4. Articles including the Common Themes (in chronological order) Four Common Themes Authors (Year) Probability and Impact Sources of Risk* Approaches to Assess Strategies to Mitigate Risk Risk Jüttner et al. (2003) X X X X Harland, et al. (2003) X X X X Cavinato (2004) X X Christopher and Lee (2004) X X X Christopher and Peck (2004) X X X Chopra and Sodhi (2004) X X X X Spekman and Davis (2004) X X X Zsidisin et al. (2004) X X X X Sheffi and Rice (2005) X X X X Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) X Tomlin (2006) X Wagner and Bode (2008) X X X X Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) X X Knemeyer, Zinn and Eroglu (2009) X X X X Tang, O. and Musa (2011) X X X X Note: * sources of risk may also be dimensions of risk, scope of risk or a similar term From Table 4 we can see that the Four Common Themes do appear with regularity in the articles that we have reviewed. A larger sample would reveal more articles in the vein of Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) and Tomlin (2006) where only one of the common themes is found. That is an expected result and we do not see that diminishing the support for our thesis about the Four Common Themes. We anticipate that a larger sample would yield similar results as shown here without very much degradation. Summary We began by using an objective approach to identify leading journals that publish topics related to supply chain risk management (SCRM) and supply chain disruptions (SCD). We tabulated the frequency of articles published and ranked the leading journals by frequency of the topic being published. We then used those articles to look for common themes and identified four common themes on the topics of probability and impact, sources of risk, approaches to assess risk and strategies to mitigate risk. These are the most commonly seen descriptors in the SCRM/SCD literature. We selected representative articles under each one of the four common themes and highlighted the major points under each

common theme. Finally we tabulated a sample of articles to provide confirming evidence about the frequency of the common themes in the literature. This paper has contributed to the knowledge base about supply chain risk management and supply chain disruptions by identifying the four common themes. We have utilized approximately 70 articles from the broader literature to conduct our analysis and we have also used a subset of those articles to highlight the content under each common theme. For future research, one issue that warrants investigation is the difference in strategies based on mitigation versus recovery. There appears to be a lack of discussion about strategies that deal with other sources of risk beyond supply-side and demand-side issues which needs to be addressed in more detail. There is also a need for research that quantifies the overall consequences of supply chain disruptions. The literature organization and other results presented in this paper can provide a foundation for future research on a variety of topics related to SCRM and SCD. References AMR, (2006), AMR Research Report on Managing Supply Chain Risk, AMR Research, Inc. Bhattacharya, A., J. Geraghty, and P. Young. (2009), On the Analytical Framework of Resilient Supply- Chain Network Assessing Excursion Events, 2009 Third Asia International Conference on Modelling & Simulation. IEEE Computer Society. Blackhurst, J., C.W. Craighead, D. Elkins and R.B. Handfield. (2005), An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No.19, pp. 4067-4081. Braunscheidel, M.J. and N.C. Suresh. (2009), The organizational antecedents of a firm s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 119-140. Carter, C.R. and D.S. Rogers. (2008), A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 360 387. Cavinato, Joseph L. (2004), Supply chain logistics risks: From the back room to the board room, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 383-387. Choi, T.Y. and J.L. Hartley. (1996), An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 333-343. Chopra, S. and Sodhi, MM.S. (2004), Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown, MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 53-61. Christopher, Martin and Denis R. Towill. 2002. Developing market specific supply chain strategies. International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13, No. 1: 1-14. Christopher, M. and H. Lee. (2004), Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 388-396.

Christopher, M. and H. Peck. (2004), Building the resilient supply chain, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 1-13. Christopher, Martin, Helen Peck and Denis Towill. 2006. A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain strategies. International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17, No. 2: 277-287. Christopher, M. (2011), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 4 th Ed., Financial Times Series/Pearson Education Limited: Edinburgh Gate, UK. Craighead, C.W., J. Blackhurst, M.J. Rungtusanatham and R.B. Handfield. (2007), The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 131-156. Croxton, K.L., S. Garcia-Dastugue, D.M. Lambert, D.S. Rogers. (2001), The supply chain management processes, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 13-36. Engelhardt-Nowitzki, C. and H.E. Zsifkovits. 2006. Complexity-Induced supply chain risks Interdependencies between supply chain risk and complexity management. In Managing Risks in Supply Chains, W. Kersten and T. Blecker [Editors], Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co.: Berlin: 37-56. Fisher, Marshall. 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 105-116. Reprint 97205. Frohlich, M.T. (2002), e-integration in the supply chain: Barriers and performance, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 537-556. Giunipero, L.C. and R.A. Eltantawy. (2004), Securing the upstream supply chain: A risk management approach, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 698-713. Google Scholar website: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html Hale, T. and C.R. Moberg. (2005), Improving supply chain disaster preparedness: A decision process for secure site location, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 195-207. Harland, C., R. Brenchley, and H. Walker. (2003), Risk in supply networks, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 9, pp. 51-62. Hendricks, K.B. and V.R. Singhal. (2003), The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 501-522. Hendricks, K.B. and V.R. Singhal. (2005a), An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35-52. Hendricks, K.B. and V.R. Singhal. (2005b), Association between supply chain glitches and operating performance, Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 695-711. Hendricks, K.B. and V.R. Singhal. (2009), The effect of operational slack, diversification, and vertical relatedness on the stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 233-246. Jüttner, Uta, H. Peck and M. Christopher. (2003), Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for future research, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 197-210. Jüttner, Uta. (2005), Supply Chain Risk Management - Understanding the Business Requirements From a Practitioner Perspective, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 120-141.

Kersten, W., M. Böger, P. Hohrath and H Späth. (2006), Supply chain risk management: Development of a theoretical and empirical framework, In Managing Risks in Supply Chains, W. Kersten and T. Blecker [Editors], Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co.: Berlin: 3-17. Khan, O. and B. Burnes. (2007), Risk and supply chain management: Creating a research agenda, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 120-141. Khan, O., M. Christopher and B. Burnes. (2008), The impact of product design on supply chain risk: A case study, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 412-432. Kinaxis White Paper. 2009. Essential characteristics of a supply chain risk management strategy. Downloaded from www.kinaxis.com on December 20, 2011 Kleindorfer, P.R. and G.H. Saad. (2005), Managing disruption risks in supply chains, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 53-68. Knemeyer, A.M., W. Zinn, and C. Eroglu. (2009), Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply chains, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, pp. 141-153. Kouvelis, P., C. Chambers and H. Wang. (2006), Supply chain management research and Production and Operations Management: Review, Trends, and Opportunities, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 449-469. Lee, Hau L. (2004), The Triple-A Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review, October, 2004. Lee, Hau L. and S. Whang. (2005), Higher supply chain security with lower cost: Lessons from Total Quality Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96: Issue 3, pp. 289-300. Levy, D.L. (1997), Lean production in an international supply chain, MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 94-102. Manuj, I. and J.T. Mentzer. (2008a), Global supply chain risk management strategies, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 192-223. Manuj, I. and J.T. Mentzer. (2008b), Global supply chain risk management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 133-155. Minner, S. (2003), Multiple-supplier inventory models in supply chain management: A review, International Journal of Production Economics, 81-82, pp. 265-279. Monroe, R.W., J.M. Teets, and P.R. Martin. (2012), Supply chain risk management: An analysis of sources of risk in the literature, working paper for 2012: MTM-001-12. Neiger, D., K. Rotaru, and L. Churilov. (2009), Supply chain risk identification with value-focused process engineering, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, pp. 154-168. Norrman, A. and U. 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, No. 5, pp. 434-456. Oke, A. and M. Gopalakrishnan. (2009), Managing disruptions in supply chains: A case study of a retail supply chain, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118, Issue 1, pp. 168-174. Peck, Helen. (2005), Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: An integrated framework, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35, No.3/4, pp. 210-232. Peck, Helen. (2006), Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 127-142. Pettit, T.J., J. Fiksel, and K.L. Croxton. (2010), Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development of a conceptual framework, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Ponomarov, S.Y. and M.C. Holcomb. (2009), Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience, International Journal of Logistics Management, 20:1: 124-143. Rao, S. and T.J. Goldsby. (2009), Supply chain risks: A review and typology, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 97-123. Roth, A.V., A.A. Tsay, M.E. Pullman, and J.V. Gray. (2008), Unraveling the food supply chain: Strategic insights from China and the 2007 recalls, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 22-39. Schoenherr, T., V.M. Rao Tummala, and T.P. Harrison. (2008), Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic hierarchy process: Providing decision support for the offshoring decision by a US manufacturing company, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 14, pp. 100-111. Sengupta, K., D.R. Heiser, and L.S. Cook. (2006), Manufacturing and service supply chain performance: A comparative analysis, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 4-15. Sheffi, Y. (2001), Supply chain management under the threat of international terrorism, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-11. Sheffi, Y. 2005. The Resilient Enterprise, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA. Sheffi, Y. and J. Rice. 2005. A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall 2005, 47:1: 41-48. Slone, R.E., J.T. Mentzer, and J.P. Dittmann. (2007), Are you the weakest link in your company s supply chain?, Harvard Business Review, September, pp. 1-11. Sodhi, M. S., Son, B.-G. and Tang, C. S. (2011), Researchers' Perspectives on Supply Chain Risk Management, Production and Operations Management. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01251.x Spekman, R.E. and E.W. Davis. (2004), Risky business: Expanding the discussion on risk and the extended enterprise, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 414-433. Supply Chain Digest. 2008. Supply Chain News: Understanding supply chain risk matrices. Supply Chain Digest Editorial Staff, July 13, 2008. {as referenced in Kinaxis white paper} Tang, C.S. (2006a), Perspectives in supply chain risk management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103, Issue 2, pp. 451-488. Tang, C.S. (2006b), Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 33-45. Tang, C.S. and B. Tomlin. (2008), The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116, Issue 1, pp. 12-27. Tang, O. and S.N. Musa. (2011), Indentifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 25-34. Tomlin, Brian. (2006), On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks, Management Science, Vol. 52, no. 5: 639-657. Trent, R. and L. Roberts. 2010. Managing Global Supply and Risk. J. Ross Publishing, Inc.: Fort Lauderdale, FL. Wagner, S.M. and C. Bode. (2006), An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol 12, pp. 301-312. Wagner, S.M. and C. Bode. (2008), An empirical examination of supply chain performance along several dimensions of risk, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 307-325. Wu, T., J. Blackhurst, and P. O Grady. (2007), Methodology for supply chain disruption analysis, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp. 1665-1682. Xiao, T., X. Qi and G. Yu. (2007), Coordination of supply chain after demand disruptions when retailers compete, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 109, Issues 1-2, pp. 162-179.

Yang, Z. (Ben), G. Aydin, V. Babich, and D.R. Beil. (2009), Supply disruptions, asymmetric information and a backup production option, Management Science, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 192-209. Zsidisin, G.A., L.M. Ellram, J.R. Carter and J.L. Cavinato. (2004), An analysis of supply risk assessment techniques, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 397-413. Appendix Table 5. Journal Abbreviations Used Journal Abbreviation Full Journal Title Dec. Sci. Decision Sciences HBR Harvard Business Review IJPDLM International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management IJPE International Journal of Production Economics IJPR International Journal of Production Research IJLM International Journal of Logistics Management IJL:R&A International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications JBL Journal of Business Logistics JOM Journal of Operations Management JP&SM Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management JSCM Journal of Supply Chain Management MIT SMR MIT Sloan Management Review MGT. SCI. Management Science POM Production and Operations Management