Disruption mitigation and recovery in supply chains using portfolio approach

An innovative portfolio approach and stochastic MIP formulations with an embedded network flow problem are developed for selection of primary and recovery suppliers and assembly plants in the presence of supply chain disruption risks. Local and regional multi-level disruptions of suppliers and assembly plants are considered. Unlike most of reported research on supply chain disruption management a disruptive event is assumed to impact both a primary supplier of parts and the buyer’s firm primary assembly plant. Then the firm may choose alternate (recovery) suppliers and move production to alternate (recovery) plants along with transshipment of parts from the impacted primary plant to the recovery plants. The resulting allocation of unfulfilled demand for parts among recovery suppliers and unfulfilled demand for products among recovery assembly plants determines recovery supply and demand portfolio, respectively. The selection of supply and demand portfolios is determined simultaneously with production scheduling in assembly plants. An integrated decision-making approach with the perfect information about the potential future disruption scenarios is compared with a hierarchical approach with no such information available ahead of time. In the integrated approach a two-stage stochastic model is applied, in which the first stage decision considers disruption scenarios to happen in the second stage so that the impact of disruption risks is mitigated. The second stage decision optimizes the supply chain recovery process. The scenario analysis indicates that for the hierarchical approach the best-case and worst-case disruption scenarios are, respectively subsets and supersets of the corresponding scenarios for the integrated approach. In addition to risk-neutral decision-making based on expected cost or expected service level optimization, an integrated risk-averse approach is developed using CVaR risk measure. The findings indicate that the developed portfolio approach leads to computationally efficient MIP models with a very strong LP relaxation.

[1]  Tadeusz Sawik,et al.  Selection of a dynamic supply portfolio in make-to-order environment withrisks , 2011, Comput. Oper. Res..

[2]  Hirofumi Matsuo,et al.  Implications of the Tohoku earthquake for Toyota׳s coordination mechanism: Supply chain disruption of automotive semiconductors ☆ , 2015 .

[3]  Sarada Prasad Sarmah,et al.  Sourcing decisions under risks of catastrophic event disruptions , 2011 .

[4]  Tsan-Ming Choi,et al.  Risk management of logistics systems , 2016 .

[5]  John R. Birge,et al.  Introduction to Stochastic Programming , 1997 .

[6]  Upmanu Lall,et al.  Flood Risks and Impacts: A Case Study of Thailand’s Floods in 2011 and Research Questions for Supply Chain Decision Making , 2015 .

[7]  David Simchi-Levi,et al.  Identifying Risks and Mitigating Disruptions in the Automotive Supply Chain , 2015, Interfaces.

[8]  Alexandre Dolgui,et al.  Disruption-driven supply chain (re)-planning and performance impact assessment with consideration of pro-active and recovery policies , 2016 .

[9]  T. Sawik.  Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks , 2013 .

[10]  R. Rockafellar,et al.  Optimization of conditional value-at risk , 2000 .

[11]  Seyed Ali Torabi,et al.  Resilient supplier selection and order allocation under operational and disruption risks , 2015 .

[12]  Tadeusz Sawik,et al.  A portfolio approach to supply chain disruption management , 2017, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[13]  Sharif H. Melouk,et al.  Sourcing strategies for a capacitated firm subject to supply and demand uncertainty , 2017, Omega.

[14]  Tadeusz Sawik.  Integrated Supply Chain Scheduling under Multi-Level Disruptions , 2015 .

[15]  Young Won Park,et al.  Supply chain lessons from the catastrophic natural disaster in Japan , 2013 .

[16]  Tadeusz Sawik.  Supply Chain Disruption Management Using Stochastic Mixed Integer Programming , 2017 .

[17]  Young Won Park,et al.  Balancing supply chain competitiveness and robustness through “virtual dual sourcing”: Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake , 2014 .

[18]  Farzad Mahmoodi,et al.  Supplier selection model with contingency planning for supplier failures , 2013, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[19]  Amanda J. Schmitt.  Strategies for customer service level protection under multi-echelon supply chain disruption risk , 2011 .

[20]  L. Jenkins.  Selecting scenarios for environmental disaster planning , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Tadeusz Sawik,et al.  Two-period vs. multi-period model for supply chain disruption management , 2018, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[22]  Amy Z. Zeng,et al.  Building a mutually beneficial partnership to ensure backup supply , 2015 .

[23]  Tadeusz Sawik,et al.  Selection of supply portfolio under disruption risks , 2011 .

[24]  Amanda J. Schmitt,et al.  OR/MS models for supply chain disruptions: a review , 2014 .

[25]  Joost R. Santos,et al.  Modeling a severe supply chain disruption and post-disaster decision making with application to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami , 2014 .

[26]  Brian Tomlin,et al.  On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain Disruption Risks , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[27]  Ajith Abraham,et al.  Fuzzy C-means and fuzzy swarm for fuzzy clustering problem , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[28]  S. PrasannaVenkatesan,et al.  Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk , 2016 .

[29]  Kannan Govindan,et al.  Responsive and resilient supply chain network design under operational and disruption risks with delivery lead-time sensitive customers , 2017 .

[30]  Amanda J. Schmitt,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Disruption Risk in a Multi-Echelon Supply Chain , 2011 .