JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No.

1, 2010

ENSURING SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE: DEVELOPMENT OF A

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
by
Timothy J. Pettit
Air Force Institute of Technology
Joseph Fiksel
The Ohio State University
and
Keely L. Croxton
The Ohio State University

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the valuable contributions of Nick LaHowchic, Rick Jackson, Tom Hellman, Suresh Patel,
David DuBose, David Kaduke, and Mark Crone of Limited Brands, Inc., Columbus, OH.
INTRODUCTION
The only constant is change.
Heraclitus, 6th century B.C. Greek philosopher
Supply chains are complex networks of enterprises that experience continual turbulence, creating a potential for
unpredictable disruptions. In fact, executives identify supply chain risk as the highest threat to their firms (FM
Global 2007). Studies by the Council for Competitiveness found that, although effectively managing such
operational risks directly affects financial performance, a majority of corporate board members were under-informed
about those risks (Council on Competitiveness 2007). Furthermore, traditional risk management techniques are
lacking in their ability to assess the complexities of supply chains, evaluate the intricate interdependencies of threats,
and prepare an enterprise for the unknowns of the future (Hertz and Thomas 1983; Starr, Newfrock, and Delurey
2003). Becoming aware of these gaps, many supply chain researchers are beginning to understand the value of the
concept of resilience, defined as the capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent
change (Fiksel 2006). This study builds on lessons learned from supply chain disruptions to create a conceptual
framework for evaluating and improving supply chain resilience.
Although there are many definitions of a supply chain, research into supply chain resilience must take a broad
view in order to capture the dynamics of turbulence and complexity. Therefore, we define a supply chain as the
network of companies involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and
information from the initial supplier to the ultimate customer (Christopher 1992; Lambert, Garca-Dastugue, and

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

Croxton 2005; Mentzer et al. 2001). The vast degree of turbulence and complexity in supply chains requires an
enterprise view with collaboration among all business functions within the firm (Ahlquist et al. 2003), as well as
inter-organizational alignment among supply chain members (Lambert 2006; Sloan, Mentzer, and Dittman 2007).
However, as a result of environmental changes, supply chains are becoming more complex and more vulnerable (see
Table 1).
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
Many tools and methods have been proposed to help business enterprises cope with continual change and
survive in the long-term. In this section, we briefly review those methods, both old and new, that have contributed
to dealing with supply chain disruptions. These provide a foundation for the concept of supply chain resilience.
TABLE 1
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POTENTIAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS
Globalized supply chains
Specialized factories
Centralized distribution
Increased outsourcing
Reduced supplier base
Increased volatility of demand
Technological innovations
Source: Adapted from Supply Chain Vulnerability: Executive
Report, School of Management, Cranfield University, 2002.
A recent example demonstrates the importance of even small disruptions to the automotive manufacturing
supply chain. On July 16, 2007, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in central Japan severely damaged the facilities of
Riken Corp., a supplier of automobile components including specialized piston rings. Riken had located all of its
plants in a single area of Japan to increase efficiency, making the entire production capacity vulnerable to a
catastrophic incident (Chozick 2007). Earthquake damage to Riken facilities and its utilities completely shut down
production for one week, and required another week of repairs to return to full output. As a result of carrying
limited inventories, Toyota, one of Rikens many customers, was highly vulnerable to production and transportation
disruptions. Toyotas sourcing strategy emphasized close relationships with a limited number of suppliers, but in
this case Toyota was forced to shut down all 12 of its domestic assembly plants, delaying production of
approximately 55,000 vehicles.
Supply chain managers are becoming increasingly aware of these vulnerabilities. A recent study found that at
the time a disruption is announced, the average shareholder return immediately drops 7.5 % (Singhal and Hendrick
2002). Four months after a disruption, the total loss grows to an average of 18.5 %. Therefore, organizations must
learn to anticipate, absorb, and overcome disruptions (Pickett 2006). However, a comprehensive solution requires a
new focus on mitigating risk that extends beyond the four walls of the single firm (Christopher and Peck 2004b).
Managing supply chain resilience is a proactive method that can complement and enhance traditional risk
management and business continuity planning.
This article develops the concept of supply chain resilience through a review of the literature on supply chain
vulnerabilities and the techniques used to anticipate, mitigate, and overcome disruptions. Following this review, we
present a conceptual framework, based on extant literature and refined through insight from focus groups conducted
at Limited Brands, Inc., which explores the multitude of factors encompassed by supply chain resilience. Based on
the framework, we posit several propositions with regards to the concept of supply chain resilience. The paper
concludes with managerial implications for using supply chain resilience to gain a competitive advantage and future
research recommendations.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

Dealing with Uncertainty in Supply Chains

The industrial revolution and inter-city transport of goods motivated the use of inventory as the primary method
of decoupling production from demand and combating the myriad of uncertainties throughout the system. Ford W.
Harris Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) model (Harris 1913) was later adapted to account for uncertainty in leadtime and demand (see Whitin 1954). Adding safety stock to cycle stock extended the use of inventory as the
primary buffer against uncertainty for decades.
The era of customer focus in the 1980s brought service to the forefront (Kent and Flint 1997). Hence,
balancing the need for stock on-the-shelf against inventory and distribution costs became the focus of logistics
managers. To manage the interaction of supply and demand risks, methods were developed for Quick Response,
using policies such as Just-in-Time (JIT), Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) and Continuous Replenishment
(Herron 1987; Schwarz and Weng 2000; Waller, Johnson, and Davis 1999; Zinn and Charnes 2005). However, this
new dependence on time-definite transportation re-opened old supply chain issues, as safety stocks were
dramatically reduced, and supply and demand were more closely coupled. In other words, Quick Response systems
increase the brittleness of supply chains by imposing connectivity requirements and reducing inventory buffers
(Monahan, Laudicina, and Attis 2003). This brittleness may be offset through increased responsiveness based on
shorter lead-times; however, in such a highly-constrained system disruptions can be disastrous (McBeath 2004).
The 1980s and 1990s saw increasing globalization and continuing cost reductions due to lean manufacturing,
as in the Toyota Production System. Lean manufacturing can be defined as a systematic approach to identifying
and eliminating waste (non-value-added activities) through continuous improvement by flowing the product at the
pull of the customer in pursuit of perfection (Optiprise 2006). However, these process improvements yielded
mixed benefits in terms of resistance to vulnerabilities. For example, with less inventory at each processing step
there is less buffer capacity for disruptions and less opportunity for innovation (Melnyk 2007). Christopher and
Rutherford (2004) recommend that one way to avoid leaning down too far is to integrate the expected cost of
recovery into the total cost equation so an optimum level of leanness can be identified.
Another important management tool that was developed through the 1980s and 1990s is Six Sigma, which
also has mixed benefits for resisting vulnerabilities. Six Sigma provides a methodology for continuous process
improvement with a goal of squeezing out process variability to achieve less than 3.4 defects per million. Once
again, finely-tuned processes may not be robust enough to absorb input disruptions without bending or breaking
(Christopher and Rutherford 2004). Forcing a system into very small variance can create resistance to change with
little flexibility. As an alternative, robustness can be achieved through resilience rather than resistance (Fiksel
2003).
Resilience Approaches
To incorporate the concept of resilience into management theory, we will present the use of the term
resilience in a variety of non-business fields and discuss lessons that can be applied to the study of supply chain
resilience. The concept of resilience is used extensively in engineering, ecological sciences, and organizational
research, all of which provide insight into creating a conceptual framework for supply chain resilience.
A very basic definition of resilience can be found in engineering: the tendency of a material to return to its
original shape after the removal of a stress that has produced elastic strain (Merriam-Webster 2007). However, it
may be beneficial for a supply chain not to return to its original shape following a disruption, but rather to learn
from the disturbance and adapt into a new configuration.
In the ecological sciences, the standard definition of resilience is the ability for an ecosystem to rebound from
a disturbance while maintaining diversity, integrity, and ecological processes (Folke et al. 2004). The concept of
adaptability is crucial to living systems, and supply chains may be seen as a network of living systems. Based on
this systems concept, Fiksel (2003) proposed four major characteristics of resilient systems: diversity, efficiency,
adaptability, and cohesion.
Finally, the concept of resilience has been studied in organizational leadership. According to Dean Becker,
president and CEO of Adaptive Learning Systems: More than education, more than experience, more than

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

training, a persons level of resilience will determine who succeeds and who fails (Coutu 2002). Therefore,
creating resilient leaders is the best way to ensure that your organization will prosper in a very chaotic and
uncertain future, and those resilient organizations consistently outlast their less resilient competitors (Stoltz 2004).
Resilience in Supply Chains
The concept of resilience in supply chains combines these previous tenets with studies of supply chain
vulnerability, defined by Svensson (2002) as unexpected deviations from the norm and their negative
consequences. Mathematically, vulnerability can be measured in terms of risk, a combination of the likelihood
of an event and its potential severity (Craighead et al. 2007; Sheffi 2005). Both these definitions have foundations
in traditional risk management techniques and are expanded by other authors (Chapman et al. 2002; Peck 2005;
Svensson 2000, 2002, 2004; Zsidisin 2003).
The first wide-spread study on supply chain resilience began in the United Kingdom, following transportation
disruptions from fuel protests in 2000 and the outbreak of the Foot and Mouth Disease in early 2001. The study
explored the UKs industrial knowledge base about supply chain vulnerabilities and found that: (1) supply chain
vulnerability is an important business issue, (2) little research exists into supply chain vulnerability, (3) awareness of
the subject is poor, and (4) a methodology is needed for managing supply chain vulnerability (Cranfield University
2003).
Based on this empirical research, Christopher and Peck (2004b) developed an initial framework for a resilient
supply chain. They asserted that supply chain resilience can be created through four key principles: (1) resilience
can be built into a system in advance of a disruption (i.e., re-engineering), (2) a high level of collaboration is
required to identify and manage risks, (3) agility is essential to react quickly to unforeseen events, and (4) the culture
of risk management is a necessity. Characteristics such as agility, availability, efficiency, flexibility, redundancy,
velocity, and visibility were treated as secondary factors.
In parallel to the Cranfield studies, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) analyzed
many case studies of supply chain disruptions with a focus on identifying vulnerability characteristics and
management responses such as flexibility, redundancy, security, and collaboration (Sheffi 2005). It is critical to
note that disruptions can also bring unexpected opportunities for success, as shown by three examples (Sheffi 2005).
First, the Los Angles Metrolink transit system increased its ridership by 20-fold immediately following the January
1994 Northridge earthquake. Second, FedEx seized opportunity in the aftermath of a strike at UPS in 1997 by
filling unmet demand. Third, Dell took advantage of the West Coast port lockout in 2002 to spur demand for LCD
monitors that they could economically ship via air freight, displacing bulkier CRTs. Such disruptions can offer an
opportunity to impress customers and win their loyalty (Knemeyer, Corsi, and Murphy 2003), and successful
recovery and adaptation to new market forces can lead to competitive advantage (Rice and Caniato 2003).
Definitions of resilience from the above studies are summarized in the appendix, Table A-1.
Resilience versus Risk Management
Resilience is an evolving concept and differs from traditional risk management. Since the 1970s, risk analysis
techniques have played a major role in corporate decision making, especially when combined with financial models
(Hertz and Thomas 1983). In practice, risk management entails examining all possible outcomes of a project or
process, then weighing the potential returns against the potential risks of the investment (Carter 1972). Currently,
the leading approach to Enterprise Risk Management comes from the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO 2004). A typical view of the traditional risk management process is shown in Figure
1, depicting a continuous cycle of identification of hazards, assessment of risks, analysis of controls, choosing
controls, implementing controls, and review. In many applications, risks can be quantified based on historical data,
but evaluating risks requires assumptions based on subjective information. Tang (2006a) reviews opportunities to
integrate risk management techniques into a comprehensive supply chain risk management programmanagement
of supply, products, demand, and information. However, applying this approach to each link in a global supply
chain for every possible disruptive cause would be onerous.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

FIGURE 1
OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Source: Adapted from Manuele (2005).

A critical step in the risk management process is risk assessment, illustrated in Figure 2, based on the assessed
probability of an event and the estimated severity if the event occurs. The greatest weakness of risk management is
its inability to adequately characterize low-probability, high-consequence (LP/HC) events, upper-left corner of
Figure 2 (Kunreuther 2006).
Additionally, the traditional risk assessment approach cannot deal with unforeseeable events. We believe that
the concept of supply chain resilience can fill these gaps and supplement existing risk management programs, thus
enabling a supply chain to survive unforeseen disruptions and create competitive advantage.
FIGURE 2
TRADITIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Source: Adapted from Manuele (2005).

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Christopher and Peck (2004a) believe that a new priority has emerged for business planning: a higher degree of
resilience. However, no existing study provides a complete framework that encompasses the wide breadth of issues
both internal and external to the supply chain. The following sections will describe our efforts to develop such a
conceptual framework.
Model Development
We first assert two postulates that we accept as truths, by definition, to provide the necessary foundation in
order to build on extant theory. These postulates will then lead to research propositions offered for future validation
as the basis for implementation of the concept of resilience. To begin, our resilience framework builds upon the
basic concept of vulnerabilities. Supply chain disturbances can be internal or external, affecting products, services,
or resources, but all resulting from some type of change (Christopher and Peck 2004a). Thus, we adopt the
following postulate:
POSTULATE 1: Forces of change create supply chain vulnerabilities.
Consistent with previous research (Chapman et al. 2002; Peck 2005; Sheffi 2005; Svensson 2000, 2002, 2004;
Zsidisin 2003), we espouse the following definition of supply chain vulnerabilities: fundamental factors that
makes an enterprise susceptible to disruptions. Our framework for resilience must take into account those
fundamental factors which encompass the broadest possible range of disruptive threats.
Second, in order to counteract vulnerabilities, research has shown that a supply chain can develop capabilities
that assure long-term survival. Capabilities are attributes required for performance or accomplishment (MerriamWebster 2007). Literature suggests many different types of supply chain capabilities (Cranfield 2002, 2003; Fiksel
2003; Hamal and Valikangas 2003; Lee 2004; Peck 2005; Rice and Caniato 2003; Sheffi 2005). Concepts such as
flexibility, agility, adaptability, and visibility are just a few commonly discussed managerial capabilities. Thus, we
adopt the following postulate:
POSTULATE 2: Management controls create supply chain capabilities.
We define supply chain capabilities as: attributes that enable an enterprise to anticipate and overcome
disruptions. These capabilities could prevent an actual disruption (e.g., security measures deterring a terrorist
attack), mitigate the effects of a disruption (e.g., stock piles of emergency supplies), or enable adaption following a
disruption.
Tang (2006b) presents nine supply chain strategies that help a firm to excel under normal operations and
recover quickly following disruptions: postponement, strategic stock, flexible supply base, make-and-buy,
economic supply incentives, flexible transportation, revenue management, dynamic assortment planning, and silent
product rollover. Similarly, Lee (2004) presents methods to overcome both short- and long-term change based on
three key capabilities: agility, adaptability, and alignment. However, we believe that the scope of supply chain
resilience requires a broader view than these strategies; the framework should encompass all supply chain processes,
relationships, and resources that offer capabilities to overcome vulnerabilities. Herein is the essence of resilience,
depicted in Figure 3 and stated in Proposition 1.
PROPOSITION 1: Supply chain resilience increases as capabilities increase and vulnerabilities decrease.
We believe that empirical studies can provide management insight into linkages between each vulnerability and
a set of successfully employed capabilities to combat that vulnerability. For example, in the highly turbulent market
of consumer electronics, a supply chain strategy of single or limited sourcing may be employed in order to achieve
close collaboration and rapid time-to-market (Lambert and Knemeyer 2004; Stank, Keller, and Daugherty 2001;).
Alternatively, open-sourcing to multiple innovative suppliers may improve competitiveness in this volatile market
(Christopher and Peck 2004a). Developing capabilities that are best linked to overcoming the supply chains
vulnerabilities create a state of balance between investment and risk. We define this state as balanced resilience.
Thus, we assert the following research proposition:

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

PROPOSITION 2: Linkages exist between each vulnerability and a specific set of capabilities that can
directly improve balanced resilience.
FIGURE 3
MEASUREMENT OF RESILIENCE

However, as shown in Figure 4, a supply chain that does not develop sufficient capabilities to offset high levels
of vulnerabilities will be overly exposed to risks. Conversely, a supply chain may over-invest in capabilities relative
to their vulnerabilities and therefore erode profits. We assert that balanced resilience will result from a fit between
the vulnerability factors and the capability factors, which is designated the Zone of Resilience in Figure 4. Thus, we
advance the following research propositions:
PROPOSITION 3A: Excessive vulnerabilities relative to capabilities will result in excessive risk.
PROPOSITION 3B: Excessive capabilities relative to vulnerabilities will erode profitability.
PROPOSITION 3C: Supply chain performance improves when capabilities and vulnerabilities are
more balanced.
Outside of the Zone of Resilience in either of the two unbalanced positions in accordance with Propositions 3A
and 3B, it is expected that no firm can be viable in the long-term as market forces will demand drastic change or
drive it out of business. These concepts are summarized in the Supply Chain Resilience Framework, Figure 5, using
the results of the three potential states of resilience described in Propositions 3A, 3B and 3C. Both potential states A
and B are considered states of unbalanced resilience and are therefore undesirable. Only potential state C, obtained
by the effective implementation of a portfolio of capabilities that is best matched with the supply chains pattern of
vulnerabilities, will lead to improved performance, per Proposition 3C. We believe that through measurement of
vulnerabilities and capabilities we can provide an evaluation of a supply chains current level of resilience, and
therefore, a tool to direct supply chain improvements.

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

FIGURE 4
ZONE OF RESILIENCE

FIGURE 5
SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

Methodology and Validation

In order to implement the vulnerability and capability constructs of the Supply Chain Resilience Framework,
detailed taxonomies of both constructs must be created. Using the tenets of Grounded Theory, theoretical structure
was extended using empirical data in a systematic method (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Our initial taxonomies of
resilience factors were first created based on extant literature, then refined and validated by supply chain managers
at Limited Brands, Inc, an apparel and beauty care products retailer with a complex global supply chain. A second
phase further explored the dimensions of resilience, in which focus groups were conducted at Limited Brands using

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

a detailed interview protocol to spur open-ended discussions on recent supply chain disruptions among functional
experts in order to extract the underlying vulnerabilities and capabilities.
Focus group research methodology was chosen for its ability to produce more in-depth information through
interactive discussions (Goldman 1962). Although the literature shows that more costly individual interviews tend
to produce a larger number of responses, focus groups are more effective for investigating complex topics and result
in uncovering ideas that may have otherwise been overlooked by the subjects individually (Morgan 1996).
FIGURE 7

Supplier/Customer
Disruptions

Connectivity

Sensitivity

Resource Limits

External Pressures

Deliberate Threats

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Turbulence

Frequency of Occurance

VULNERABILITY EXAMPLES FROM FOCUS GROUPS

* N = 50 examples

In all, eight separate focus groups were conducted at Limited Brands over a period of two months, with each
group having two to four members of similar backgrounds to encourage more in-depth discussions. Following an
open discussion of members recent experiences with supply chain disruptions, the refined Supply Chain Resilience
taxonomy was presented, and subjects were asked to match their experiences to the framework. This process was
effective in identifying gaps and redundancies without biasing the group members opinions. A total of 50 examples
of vulnerabilities and an additional 96 specific capabilities were recorded during this process, see Figures 7 and 8.
Successive iterations of the Supply Chain Resilience taxonomy were presented to each of the eight focus groups
until no further updates were necessary, thus meeting goals for saturation of ideas and convergence of propositions
(Patton 1990). Additionally, by treating each focus group as an individual case study of the members experiences,
the study also meets the recommended minimums of six to 10 cases for providing compelling evidence to support
the initial propositions (Ellram 1996; Yin 2003). The resulting taxonomy was presented to the sponsoring senior
management at Limited Brands for a final round of validation. A consensus was achieved between the research
team and the management panel in terms of the breadth, depth, and clarity of the Supply Chain Resilience
Framework.

10

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

FIGURE 8
CAPABILITY EXAMPLES FROM FOCUS GROUPS

Note: While refining the Supply Chain Resilience Framework, it was noted that Limited Brands outsources production and therefore had no
examples of internal production efficiency capabilities. In addition, the focus groups had no participation from sales or marketing representatives
who would be expected to have greater insight into Market Position capabilities; however, both of these capabilities are well documented in
literature and were validated by senior management at Limited Brands.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Supply Chain Resilience Framework has great potential for providing management insight into their
strengths, weaknesses, and priorities. First, by identifying highly rated capabilities, managers will have detailed
information on their strengths. In line with the resource-based approach to strategy analysis (Grant 1991), firms
must first identify their current resources and strengthswhat they can do more effectively than their rivals.
However, Proposition 3C states that resilience is not simply a matter of strengths, but it is the balance between
capabilities and vulnerabilities that creates a firms true competitive advantage. For example, one global electronics
firm reported very strong security programs, but they may be eroding profits as the supply chain does not face
significant vulnerabilities from deliberate threats (see Proposition 3B). A global supply chain will have high levels
of Connectivity by design and, for example, must create strong capabilities in the areas of Collaboration, Visibility,
and Flexibility in order to effectively manage their vast number of interrelated operations between multiple tiers of
suppliers and customers, thus contributing to balanced resilience.
Second, the framework can identify weaknesses in the network of enterprises that comprise the supply chain.
Low capabilities that correspond to moderate or high vulnerabilities can dramatically degrade the supply chains
resilience. For example, a supply chain with a high vulnerability to Connectivity can face disastrous consequences
if it has poor capabilities of Visibility and Collaboration (see Proposition 3A).
Finally, the framework provides managerial guidance for setting priorities to create a strategy for improving
Supply Chain Resilience. This strategy must be based on assessment of the firms pattern of vulnerabilities and its
competitive advantages, weighed against the potential return on investment. In doing so, corporate strategy will
focus resource investments to fill gaps (Grant 1991). For example, if a high vulnerability of the symbolic profile of
the brand can directly threaten a firms market position, a high priority should be placed on investments in product
quality assurance (see Proposition 2). A well-managed enterprise continually examines its turbulent environment
and realigns its resources faster than its rivals (Hamel and Valikangas 2003; Lummus, Duclos, and Vokurka 2003).
Therefore, periodic assessment of the resilience of the supply chain is necessary.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

11

TABLE 2
VULNERABILITY FACTORS
Vulnerability
Factor

Definition

Turbulence

Environment characterized by
frequent changes in external factors
beyond your control

Deliberate threats

Intentional attacks aimed at

disrupting operations or causing
human or financial harm

External pressures

Influences, not specifically targeting

the firm, that create business
constraints or barriers

Resource limits

Constraints on output based on

availability of the factors of
production

Sensitivity

Importance of carefully controlled

conditions for product and process
integrity

Connectivity

Degree of interdependence and

reliance on outside entities

Supplier/Customer
disruptions

Susceptibility of suppliers and

customers to external forces or
disruptions

Sub-Factors
Natural disasters, Geopolitical disruptions,
Unpredictability of demand, Fluctuations in
currencies and prices, Technology failures,
Pandemic
Theft, Terrorism/sabotage, Labor disputes,
Espionage, Special interest groups, Product
liability
Competitive innovation, Social/Cultural
change, Political/Regulatory change, Price
pressures, Corporate responsibility,
Environmental change
Supplier, Production and Distribution capacity,
Raw material and Utilities availability, Human
resources
Complexity, Product purity, Restricted
materials, Fragility, Reliability of equipment,
Safety hazards, Visibility to stakeholders,
Symbolic profile of brand, Concentration of
capacity
Scale of network, Reliance upon information,
Degree of outsourcing, Import and Export
channels, Reliance upon specialty sources
Supplier reliability, Customer disruptions

Table 2 defines the final seven vulnerability factors. However, in order to translate the vulnerability factors into
measurable attributes, each factor was refined during this research resulting in 40 specific vulnerability sub-factors.
Table A-2 includes the entire vulnerability taxonomy with sub-factors matched with a select sample from literature.
Table 3 lists the final 14 capability factors, with their 71 sub-factors listed in Table A-3. This compilation provides
the first detailed taxonomy of supply chain resilience, allowing management to develop a portfolio of capabilities
balancing their inherent pattern of vulnerabilities, in accordance with the Supply Chain Resilience Framework.

12

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

TABLE 3
CAPABILITY FACTORS

Capability
Factor

Definition

Sub-Factors

Flexibility in
sourcing

Ability to quickly change

inputs or the mode of
receiving inputs

Part commonality, Modular product design, Multiple

uses, Supplier contract flexibility, Multiple sources

Flexibility in
order fulfillment

Ability to quickly change

outputs or the mode of
delivering outputs

Alternate distribution channels, Risk

pooling/sharing, Multi-sourcing, Delayed
commitment, Production postponement, Inventory
management, Re-routing of requirements

Capacity

Availability of assets to enable

sustained production levels

Reserve capacity, Redundancy, Backup energy

sources and communications

Capability to produce outputs

with minimum resource
requirements
Knowledge of the status of
operating assets and the
environment

Waste elimination, Labor productivity, Asset

utilization, Product variability reduction, Failure
prevention
Business intelligence gathering, Information
technology, Products, Assets and People visibility,
Information exchange
Fast re-routing of requirements, Lead time reduction,
Strategic gaming and simulation, Seizing advantage
from disruptions, Alternative technology
development, Learning from experience
Monitoring early warning signals, Forecasting,
Deviation and Near-miss analysis, Contingency
planning, Preparedness, Risk management, Business
continuity planning, Recognition of opportunities

Efficiency
Visibility

Adaptability

Ability to modify operations

in response to challenges or
opportunities

Anticipation

Ability to discern potential

future events or situations

Recovery

Ability to return to normal

operational state rapidly

Dispersion

Broad distribution or
decentralization of assets

Collaboration

Ability to work effectively

with other entities for mutual
benefit

Organization

Human resource structures,

policies, skills and culture

Market position

Status of a company or its

products in specific markets

Security

Defense against deliberate

intrusion or attack

Financial
strength

Capacity to absorb
fluctuations in cash flow

Crisis management, Resource mobilization,

Communications strategy, Consequence mitigation
Distributed decision-making, Distributed capacity
and assets, Decentralization of key resources,
Location-specific empowerment, Dispersion of
markets
Collaborative forecasting, Customer management,
Communications, Postponement of orders, Product
life cycle management, Risk sharing with partners
Learning, Accountability and Empowerment,
Teamwork, Creative problem solving, Crosstraining, Substitute leadership, Culture of caring
Product differentiation, Customer loyalty/retention
Market share, Brand equity, Customer relationships,
Customer communications
Layered defenses, Access restrictions, Employee
involvement, Collaboration with governments,
Cyber-security, Personnel security
Insurance, Portfolio diversification, Financial
reserves and liquidity, Price margin

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

13

CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The concept of resilience is broader in scope than integrated supply chain management, continuity planning,
risk management, or an amalgamation of all of these disciplines (Peck 2005). The Supply Chain Resilience
Framework is the first to define resilience in terms of measurable variables. This conceptual study offers three
major contributions. First, the framework recognizes the need to balance managerial capabilities with the inherent
vulnerabilities of the supply chain design and the environment in which it operates. Second, through our detailed
review of literature and exploratory research, we have identified 14 unique capabilities which contribute to
increasing a supply chains level of resilience. By developing the taxonomy (Table A-3), measurable capability subfactors have been identified for the first time. However, as stated in Proposition 3C, we believe that the best level of
resilience will be achieved only when a balance is maintained between capabilities and vulnerabilities. Therefore,
this research consolidated a wide range of literature on supply chain disruptions to identify seven distinct supply
chain vulnerabilities (Table A-2). Thus, the third contribution of this research was to translate resilience concepts
into the Supply Chain Resilience Framework (Figure 5) to create a useful managerial tool for improving
performance.
This exploratory research must be followed by empirical validation. Feedback to date from Limited Brands and
other firms has been very positive and suggests great potential for the Supply Chain Resilience Framework.
Empirical evaluation of the resilience definitions and concepts presented here is required by academics and
practitioners to provide validation. Large-scale testing will be required to confirm propositions. Future research
must engage a wide range of functional specialists and process integration experts to capture the cross-functional
interactions of capabilities. In addition, detailed analysis of past disruptions and successful anticipation, recovery,
and adaptation efforts will be essential in future research to determine the significant linkages between specific
capabilities and inherent vulnerabilities, as stated in Proposition 2. Finally, further research is required to address
measurement and implementation issues in order to convert this conceptual framework into a successful managerial
tool.
History has proven over the past two centuries that America as a nation is far more resilient than the
companies it has spawned (Hamel and Valikangas 2003). Yet even after wide-reaching disruptive events such as
9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, a MIT study found that most companies are still not thinking systematically about
managing supply chain risks and vulnerabilities (Sheffi 2005). Our Supply Chain Resilience Framework will
provide a new tool to assess supply chain fitness and provide critical insights for decision making. Business leaders
must demand enterprise resilience measures in order to manage todays increasingly complex supply chains
(Ahlquist et al. 2003).
Just as the market is constantly changing, threats to our supply chains are evolving, adapting, and changing as
well. Resilience is not a static goal but requires our continuing attention (Allenby and Fink 2005). These are
challenging times butthere are ways in which companies can create more resilient supply chains (Christopher
and Peck 2004b). Resilience is a mandatory characteristic of a supply chain in order to survive in the short-term, but
also provides the ability to adapt to change and thrive in the long-term. Management strategists are beginning to
argue that supply chain resilience will prove to be the ultimate competitive advantage in an age of turbulence
(Hamel and Valikangas 2003).
NOTES
Ahlquist, Gary, Gil Irwin, David Knott, and Kimberly Allen (2003), Enterprise Resilience, Best's Review, Vol.
104, No. 3, p. 88.
Allenby, Brad and Jonathan Fink (2005), Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies, Science, Vol. 309,
No. 5737, pp. 1034-1036.
Carter, E. Eugene (1972), What are the Risks in Risk Analysis? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.
72-82.

14

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

Chapman, Paul, Martin Christopher, Uta Jttner, Helen Peck, and Richard Wilding (2002), Identifying and
Managing Supply-chain Vulnerability, Logistics and Transport Focus, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 59-64.
Chozick, Amy (2007), A Key Strategy of Japan's Car Makers Backfires, Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition,
(July 20, 2007), pp. B1 and B5.
Christopher, Martin (1992), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, London: Pitman Publishing.
Christopher, Martin and Helen Peck (2004a), Building the Resilient Supply Chain, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Christopher, Martin and Helen Peck (2004b), The Five Principles of Supply Chain Resilience, Logistics Europe,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.16-21.
Christopher, Martin and Christine Rutherford (2004), Creating Supply Chain Resilience through Agile Six Sigma,
CriticalEYE Publications, Ltd, http://www.criticaleye.net , accessed August 1, 2006.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission (2004), Enterprise Risk
ManagementIntegrated Framework: Executive Summary, http://www.aicpa.org , accessed April 14, 2008.
Council on Competitiveness (2007), The Resilient Economy: Integrating Competitiveness and Security,
http://www.compete.org , accessed June 20, 2007.
Coutu, Diana (2002), How Resilience Works, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 5, pp. 46-51.
Craighead, Christopher W., Jennifer Blackhurst, Johnny M. Rungtusanatham, and Robert B. Handfield, (2007),
The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 131-156.
Cranfield University (2002), Supply Chain Vulnerability: Executive Report, School of Business, Cranfield, UK:
Cranfield University.
Cranfield University (2003), Creating Resilient Supply Chain: A Practical Guide, Centre for Logistics and Supply
Chain Management, Cranfield, UK: Cranfield University.
Ellram, Lisa M. (1996), The Use of the Case Study Method in Logistics Research, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 93-138.
Fiksel, Joseph (2003), Designing Resilient, Sustainable Systems, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 37,
No. 23, pp. 5330-5339.
Fiksel, Joseph (2006), Sustainability and Resilience: Toward a Systems Approach, Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-8.
FM Global (2007), Managing Business Risk through 2009 and Beyond, http://www.protectingvalue.com ,
accessed April 10, 2008.
Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmquist, Lance Gunderson, and C. S.
Holling (2004), Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management, Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 557-581.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goldman, Alfred E. (1962), The Group Depth Interview, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 61-68.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

15

Gorman, Christine, Sarah S. Dale, Wendy Grossman, Kathie Klarreich, Jeanne McDowell, and Leslie Whitaker
(2005), The Importance of Resilience, Time Canada, Vol. 165, No. 3, pp. 76-79.
Grant, Robert M. (1991), The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy
Formulation, California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Hamel, Gary and Liisa Vlikangas (2003), The Quest for Resilience, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, No. 9,
pp. 52-63.
Harris, Ford W. (1913), How Many Parts to Make at Once, Factory, The Magazine of Management, Vol. 10, No.
2, pp. 135-136, 152; in Donald Erlenkotter (1990), Ford Whitman Harris and the Economic Order Quantity
Model, Operations Research, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 937-946.
Herron, David P. (1987), Integrated Inventory Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 96116.
Hertz, David B and Howard Thomas (1983), Risk Analysis and its Applications, Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Kent, John L. Jr. and Daniel J. Flint (1997), Perspectives on the Evolution of Logistics Thought, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 15-29.
Knemeyer, A. Michael, Thomas M. Corsi, and Paul R. Murphy (2003), Logistics Outsourcing Relationships:
Customer Perspectives, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 77-109.
Kunreuther, Howard (2006), Risk and Reaction, Harvard International Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 37-42.
Lambert, Douglas M. (ed.) (2006), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance, 2nd ed.,
Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Institute.
Lambert, Douglas M., Sebastin J. Garca-Dastugue, and Keely L. Croxton, (2005) An Evaluation of Processoriented Supply Chain Management Frameworks, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Lambert, Douglas M. and A. Michael Knemeyer (2004), We're in this Together, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
82, No. 12, pp. 114-122.
Lee, Hau L. (2004), The Triple-A Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 10, pp. 102-112.
Lummus, Rhonda R., Leslie K. Duclos, and Robert J. Vokurka (2003), Supply Chain Flexibility: Building a New
Model, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Manuele, Fred A. (2005), Risk Assessment & Hierarchies of Control, Professional Safety, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 3339.
McBeath, Bill (2004), Resilient Supply Chains: The Next Frontier, SCM Research Center,
http://www.technology-evaluation.com , accessed September 8, 2005.
Melnyk, Steven A. (2007), Lean to a fault? Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals Supply Chain
Quarterly, Vol. 2007, No. 3, pp. 29-33.
Mentzer, John T., William DeWitt, James Keebler, Soonhong Min, Nancy Nix, Carlo Smith, and Zach Zacharia
(2001), Defining Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Merriam-Webster (2007), Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Monahan, Sean, Paul Laudicina, and David Attis (2003), Supply Chains in a Vulnerable Volatile World,
Executive Agenda, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 5-16.

16

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

Morgan, David L. (1996), Focus Groups, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 129-152.
Optiprise (2006), History of Lean: The Evolution of a New Manufacturing Paradigm, http://www.optiprise.com ,
accessed July 10, 2006.
Patton, Michael Quinn (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Peck, Helen (2005), Drivers of Supply Chain Vulnerability: An Integrated Framework, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 210-232.
Pickett, Christopher (2006), Prepare for Supply Chain Disruptions Before they Hit, Logistics Today, Vol. 47, No.
6, pp. 22-25.
Rice, James B. Jr. and Federico Caniato (2003), Building a Secure and Resilient Supply Network, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 22-30.
Schwarz, Leroy B. and Z. Kevin Weng (2000), The Design of a JIT Supply Chain: The Effect of Lead-time
Uncertainty on Safety Stock, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 231-253.
Sheffi, Yossi (2005), The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Singhal, Vinod R. and Kevin B. Hendricks (2002), How Supply Chain Glitches Torpedo Shareholder Value,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 18-24.
Slone, Reuben E., John T. Mentzer, and J. Paul Dittmann (2007), Are You the Weakest Link in your Companys
Supply Chain? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, No. 9, pp. 116-127.
Stank, Theodore P., Scott B. Keller, and Patricia J. Daugherty (2001), Supply Chain Collaboration and Logistical
Service Performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Starr, Randy, Jim Newfrock, and Michael Delurey (2003), Enterprise Resilience: Managing Risk in the
Networked Economy, Strategy + Business, Issue 30, pp. 1-10.
Stoltz, Paul G. (2004), Building Resilience for Uncertain Times, Leader to Leader, No. 31, pp. 16-20.
Svensson, Goran (2000), A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Vulnerability in Supply Chains,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 731-749.
Svensson, Goran (2002), Dyadic Vulnerability in Companies Inbound and Outbound Logistics Flows,
International Journal of Logistics and Research Applications, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 13-44.
Svensson, Goran (2004), Vulnerability in Business Relationships: The Gap between Dependence and Trust,
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 469-483.
Tang, Christopher S. (2006a) Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 451-488.
Tang, Christopher S. (2006b), Robust Strategies for Mitigating Supply Chain Disruptions, International Journal
of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 3345.
Waller, Matt, M. Eric Johnson, and Tom Davis (1999), Vendor-managed Inventory in the Retail Supply Chain,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 183-203.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

17

Whitin, Thomson M. (1954), Inventory Control Research: A Survey, Management Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
32-40.
Yin, Robert K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zinn, Walter and John M. Charnes (2005), A Comparison of the Economic Order Quantity and Quick Response
Inventory Replenishment Methods, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 119-141.
Zsidisin, George A. (2003), A Grounded Definition of Supply Risk, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 9, No. 5/6, pp. 217-224.
APPENDIX
TABLE A-1
DEFINITIONS OF RESILIENCE
Source
MerriamWebster
(2007)
Folke et al.
(2004)

Definition
Capability of a body to recover its size and shape after deformation

Field of study
Engineering

Ability to rebound from a disturbance while maintaining diversity,

integrity and ecological processes

Ecology

Gorman et al.
(2005)
Stoltz (2004)

Ability to bounce back from adversity

Psychology

Ability to bounce back from adversity and move forward stronger than
ever

Leadership

Rice and
Caniato (2003)
Sheffi (2005)

Ability to react to an unexpected disruption and restore normal operations

Supply chain

Containment of disruption and recovery from it

Supply chain

Christopher
and Peck
(2004a)
Fiksel (2006)

Ability of a system to return to its original state or move to a new, more

desirable state after being disturbed

Supply chain

Capacity for complex industrial systems to survive, adapt, and grow in the
face of turbulent change

Supply chain

18

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

TABLE A-2
SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK VULNERABILITIES

Main Factors of
Vulnerability
Turbulence

Deliberate threats

External pressures

Resource limits

Sensitivity

Descriptors
Natural disasters
Exposure to geopolitical
disruptions
Unpredictability of demand
Fluctuations in currencies &
prices
Unforeseen technology failures
Pandemic
Piracy & theft
Terrorism & sabotage
Labor disputes
Industrial espionage

Svennson
(2000)
X

Hamel and
Valikangas
(2003)

Christopher,
Rutherford
(2004)
X

Peck
(2005)
X

Sheffi
(2005)
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

Special interest groups

Product liability
Innovation (competition)
Social/Cultural changes
Political/Regulatory changes

X
X
X

Price pressures (competition)

Corporate responsibility
Environmental changes
Supplier capacity
Production capacity
Distribution capacity
Raw material availability
Utilities availability
Human resources
Complexity
Product purity
Restricted materials
Fragility
Reliability of equipment

Potential safety hazards

Visibility of disruption to
stakeholders
Symbolic profile of brand
Concentration of capacity
Connectivity

Supplier/Customer
disruptions

Scale/Extent of supply network

Reliance upon information flow
Degree of outsourcing
Import/Export channels
Reliance upon specialty sources
Supplier trust, loyalty, relations,
reliability
Customer disruptions

X
X

X
X

X
X

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

19

TABLE A-3
SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK CAPABILITIES

Main Factors
of Capability
Descriptors
FlexibilityInput commonality
sourcing
Modularity and interchangeability
Multiple uses for supplies
Supplier contract flexibility
Multiple sources
FlexibilityAlternate distribution channels
fulfillment
Risk pooling/sharing
Multi-sourcing (peak vs. base)
Delayed commitment, Production
postponement
Inventory management
Fast re-routing of requirements
Reserve capacity (materials, assets,
Capacity
labor, inventory)
Redundancy (assets, labor)
Backup energy sources/communications
Efficiency
Waste elimination
Labor productivity
Asset utilization
Product variability reduction
Failure prevention
Visibility
Business intelligence gathering
Information technology
Products, Assets, People visibility
Collaborative information exchange
Adaptability Fast re-routing of requirements
Process Improvement, Lead time
reduction
Strategic gaming & simulation
Seizing advantage from disruptions
Alternative technology development
Learning from experience,
Reengineering
Anticipation Monitoring early warning signals
Forecasting
Deviation, Near-miss analysis
Contingency planning, Preparedness
(Training/Drill/Exercise plans)
Risk management, Business continuity
planning
Recognition of opportunities
Recovery
Crisis management
Resource mobilization
Communications strategy
Consequence mitigation
Dispersion
Distributed decision-making
Distributed capacity & assets

Cranfield Hamel and Rice and

(2002, Valikangas Caniato Fiksel
2003)
(2003)
(2003) (2003)

Peck
(2005)

Sheffi
(2005)

Tang
(2006b)

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

20

PETTIT, FIKSEL, & CROXTON

TABLE A-3 (cont.)

Main Factors
of Capability

Descriptors
Decentralization of key resources
(including data)
Location-specific empowerment
Geographic dispersion of markets
Collaborative forecasting, Customer
Collaboration
relationship management
Communications - internal, external
Postponement of orders
Product life cycle management
Risk sharing with partners
Organization Learning, Benchmarking, Feedback
Responsibility, Accountability &
Empowerment
Teamwork, Creative problem solving
Training, Cross-train workers
Substitute leadership capacity
Culture of caring for employees
Market
Product differentiation
position
Customer loyalty/retention
M arket share
Brand equity
Customer relationships
Customer communications
Security
Layered defenses
Access restriction
Employee involvement in security
Collaboration with governments
C y b e r-s e c u r ity
Personnel security
Financial
Insurance
strength
Portfolio diversification
Financial reserves & liquidity
Price margin

Cranfield Hamel and Rice and

(2002, Valikangas Caniato Fiksel
(2003) (2003)
2003)
(2003)

Peck
(2005)

Sheffi
(2005)

Tang
(2006b)

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

*NOTE: Authors specifically describe security as separate from resilience

X
X

X
X

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

21

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Timothy J. Pettit (Ph.D. The Ohio State University) is an Assistant Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain
Management at the Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton, Ohio, while on active duty as a Lieutenant Colonel
in the US Air Force. In addition to his continuing research in commercial and military supply chain resilience,
Lieutenant Colonel Pettit teaches Lean Operations Management, Logistics Strategy and Supply Chain Management.
His career in the US Air Force includes a breadth of logistics experience serving as an aircraft maintenance officer
and a logistics readiness officer, leading F-16, A-10, and F-15 maintenance organizations as well as in-garrison and
expeditionary logistics squadrons. Lieutenant Colonel Pettits breadth of experience has extended overseas as a
technical advisor to foreign militaries and later as a headquarters weapon system manager for fighter, cargo, tanker,
and special operations aircraft. He has published in the Air Force Journal of Logistics and the Supply Chain and
Logistics Journal. Lieutenant Colonel Pettit earned a B.S. from Iowa State University in Aerospace Engineering,
MS in Logistics Management from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and Ph.D. in Business Administration
from The Ohio State University.
Joseph Fiksel (Ph.D. Stanford University) is Executive Director of the Center for Resilience at The Ohio State
University, an interdisciplinary research center that is developing a unified approach for modeling risk, resilience,
and sustainability in complex systems. As Senior Research Scientist for Integrated Systems Engineering, he
engages in collaboration with companies, government agencies, nonprofits, and other research organizations to
develop new methods and tools for understanding the interdependence among social, environmental, and economic
interests. Joseph is also Principal and Co-Founder of the consulting firm Eco-Nomics LLC, and is an internationally
recognized authority on sustainable business practices. He has over 20 years of management consulting experience,
specializing in environmental risk management, product stewardship, design for environment, and sustainability. He
has published over 70 refereed articles and several books, and is a frequent invited speaker at business and
professional conferences. His most recent book, Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and
Processes, has been translated into Spanish and distributed worldwide. Joseph holds a B.Sc. from MIT, a Ph.D. in
Operations Research from Stanford University, and an advanced degree in applied mathematics from La Sorbonne.
Keely L. Croxton (Ph.D. MIT) is an Associate Professor of Logistics in the Department of Marketing and
Logistics at The Ohio State University. Her research interests are in logistics optimization and supply chain
management, and she has been published in the Journal of Business Logistics, Transportation Science, Management
Science, and The International Journal of Logistics Management. She has worked in the automotive, paper and
packaging, and third-party logistics industries. Dr. Croxton holds a BS in Industrial Engineering from Northwestern
University and a Ph.D. in Operations Research from MIT.
Contact author: Timothy J. Pettit; E-mail: [email protected]