RRL

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

upply chain disruptions have

been defined as “unplanned and


unanticipated events that
disrupt the normal flow of goods
and
materials within a supply
chain” (Craighead et al. 2007,
132).
Much research has focused on
preventing disruptions before
they
occur by minimizing the risk of
their occurrence (see, e.g., Tom-
lin 2006; Ritchie and Brindley
2007; Zwikael and Sadeh 2007;
Manuj and Mentzer 2008a;
Wagner and Bode 2008;
Fragniére
et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2010;
Yang and Yang 2010). However,
a series of recent disruptions
caused by events such as
Hurricane
Katrina (2005), the Eyjafjallaj€
okull volcano (2010), the
Japanese
earthquake/tsunami (2011), and
the Evonik chemical plant fire in
Germany (2012) provide
unmistakable evidence that
managers
do not have the ability to
prevent all disruptions. Certain
events
having a significant disruptive
impact on supply chains will, in
fact, occur regardless of risk
planning. As a result, managers
will
continue to face the critical
challenge of recovering from
supply
chain disruptions and
attempting to minimize their
impact. Thus,
beyond understanding how
managers might work to
prevent dis-
ruptions through risk planning,
it must be better understood
how
managers respond to and
recover from the supply chain
disrup-
tions they experience
upply chain disruptions have
been defined as “unplanned and
unanticipated events that
disrupt the normal flow of goods
and
materials within a supply
chain” (Craighead et al. 2007,
132).
Much research has focused on
preventing disruptions before
they
occur by minimizing the risk of
their occurrence (see, e.g., Tom-
lin 2006; Ritchie and Brindley
2007; Zwikael and Sadeh 2007;
Manuj and Mentzer 2008a;
Wagner and Bode 2008;
Fragniére
et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2010;
Yang and Yang 2010). However,
a series of recent disruptions
caused by events such as
Hurricane
Katrina (2005), the Eyjafjallaj€
okull volcano (2010), the
Japanese
earthquake/tsunami (2011), and
the Evonik chemical plant fire in
Germany (2012) provide
unmistakable evidence that
managers
do not have the ability to
prevent all disruptions. Certain
events
having a significant disruptive
impact on supply chains will, in
fact, occur regardless of risk
planning. As a result, managers
will
continue to face the critical
challenge of recovering from
supply
chain disruptions and
attempting to minimize their
impact. Thus,
beyond understanding how
managers might work to
prevent dis-
ruptions through risk planning,
it must be better understood
how
managers respond to and
recover from the supply chain
disrup-
tions they experience
Supply chain disruptions have been defined as “unplanned and unanticipated events that disrupt the
normal flow of goods and materials within a supply chain” (Craighead et al. 2007, 132). Much research
has focused on preventing disruptions before they occur by minimizing the risk of their occurrence (see,
e.g., Tom-lin 2006; Ritchie and Brindley 2007; Zwikael and Sadeh 2007; Manuj and Mentzer 2008a;
Wagner and Bode 2008; Fragniéreet al. 2010; Wang et al. 2010; Yang and Yang 2010). However, a series
of recent disruptions caused by events such as Hurricane Katrina (2005), the Eyjafjallajokull volcano
(2010), the Japanese earthquake/tsunami (2011), and the Evonik chemical plant fire in Germany (2012)
provide unmistakable evidence that managers do not have the ability to prevent all disruptions. Certain
event shaving a significant disruptive impact on supply chains will, in fact, occur regardless of risk
planning. As a result, managers will continue to face the critical challenge of recovering from supply
chain disruptions and attempting to minimize their impact. Thus, beyond understanding how managers
might work to prevent disruptions through risk planning, it must be better understood how managers
respond to and recover from the supply chain disruptions they experience.

The adoption of digital technologies in manufacturing becomes increasingly important in the current
global business environment. In the last decade, manufacturing firms have been exploring how to use
emerging digital technologies, e.g., Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics (BDA), and artificial
intelligence (AI), in their production and supply chain management (SCM) (Addo-Tenkorang and Helo,
2016; Caputo et al., 2016). SCM includes the control, management and improvement of the flows of
materials and information between the initial suppliers and end users through a network of connected
organizations (Christopher 2016). These technologies are seen as promising means to improve supply
chain functions, such as procurement, logistics, scheduling and planning (Arunachalam et al., 2018). IoT
has been extensively applied in factories and transportations to monitor the production process, and
track and trace the logistics and warehouse operations (Hopkins and Hawking, 2018; Caro and Sadr,
2019). The real-time data collected from the IoT devices, combined with the data from other supply
chain processes, has the potential to generate significant business value through the application of BDA
and AI (Kache and Seuring, 2015). It could help firms better forecast customer demands, reveal the
inventory problems, optimize resource allocation, and manage suppliers’ relationships. These emerging
digital technologies are not only changing the products and process, but also modifying value chains,
renovating business models, and affecting the industrial structures (Ceipek et al., 2020).

There is a growing research interest in the adoption of digital technologies in manufacturing firms at a
supply chain level (Hazen et al., 2016). In general, existing studies have shown that digital technologies
can help firms improve their supply chain performance by enhancing efficiency (Govindan et al., 2018; Yu
et al., 2018), visibility (Arya et al., 2017; Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Kache and Seuring, 2017), resilience
(da Silva et al., 2018) and robustness (Brandon‐Jones et al., 2014), as well as reduce supply chain risks
(Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018; Khan et al., 2019) and supply uncertainties (Bag, 2017). The digitalization
of supply chains produces large volumes of data, which is regarded as a new kind of resource and has the
potential to create value and enhance competitiveness. This could affect firms' business models and
change the ways how firms create and capture value (D'lppolito et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2018; Hänninen
et al., 2018). Research has also shown that digital technologies have transformed the traditional ways of
managing supply chains towards more data-driven approaches (Singh and El-Kassar, 2019; Waller and
Fawcett, 2013). Manufacturing firms are putting more focus on how to use supply chain data to predict
market demand, provide predictive maintenance and optimize production and logistics (Arunachalam et
al., 2018). This requires a much higher level of data analytic skills and capabilities compared to the
traditional SCM.

However, the adoption of digital technologies does not always succeed (Correani et al., 2020). Many
manufacturing firms put large investments into digital transformation, but failed to deliver the expected
business value (Rai, 2000). The failure is often caused by the disconnection between the strategy
formulation and implementation (Correani et al., 2020). Inappropriate adoption of digital technologies
may result in disruptive change that leads to high risk and uncertainty during the transformation. Some
researchers pointed out that digital manufacturing could change the structure of supply chains from
centralized production model to distributed model (Holmström and Partanen, 2014). This usually greatly
shortens the supply chain, resulting in the potential risks to other players within the supply chain as they
also need to quickly adapt to this disruptive change.

The adoption of digital technology is significantly affected by the technological, organizational and
environmental factors (Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2018). Therefore, before adopting any technologies, it is
essential for firms to understand its purposes and the assess these factors, analyze what might happen in
the process and how each process might affect the supply chain. In other words, firms need to start with
analyzing "why" (representing the drivers, purposes and motives), followed by "how" (representing the
processes or methods) and "what" (representing the impacts, outcomes or results). Despite the growing
research interests in the area, the current understanding of these three layers (i.e., why, how and what)
of adopting digital technologies in supply chain is still limited. Managers are still facing challenges of
aligning their implementation processes with their drivers in order to achieve the expected outcomes of
adopting the digital technologies.

Supply chains today operate within an increasingly uncertain and competitive environment, where
disruptions can have a significant impact on business performance (Azadegan et al., 2020). Such
disruptions can be the result of accidents (Stecke & Kumar, 2009), natural but also man-made disasters
(Elluru et al., 2019), including events as for example the 2008 global financial crisis, the UK’s withdrawal
from the European Union (Brexit) (Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso Wamba, et al., 2021), loss of critical suppliers
(Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009), and many others.

Supply chain systems during the Covid-19 pandemic have been particularly susceptible to disruptions
because of the volatile demand, stemming from incomplete and often misleading information circulated,
that resulted in misinformation with regards to “procurement, capacity allocation, contracting,
scheduling, postponement and demand forecasting” (Gunessee & Subramanian, 2020, p. 1202). Such
misinformation has resulted to negative implications regarding consumer behaviour, and triggered in
turn substantial and often difficult to handle fluctuations in demand (Ivanov, 2020), thus resulting in
increased uncertainty.

To address such disruptions, the literature has highlighted the need to consider resilience of supply
chains and to further delve on this concept, rather than restricting the discourse to solely risks
(Gunessee & Subramanian, 2020). Resilience in general reflects a company’s ability to return to a
business-as-usual state with regards to production and services following a major disruption (Rezapour
et al., 2017). Specifically for supply chains, resilience describes the readiness of an organisation or
business to address risks, uncertainty, and generally disruptions that may originate from customers,
suppliers or other business processes and supply chain integration mechanisms used (Purvis et al.,
2016).
Because disruptions can have significant repercussions for both revenues and costs (Ponomarov &
Holcomb, 2009) and may lead to reputational damages(Elluru et al., 2019), to date, the literature has
highlighted that overcoming disruptions is of critical importance for businesses. As such, within the
operations and supply chain literatures, the concept of resilience is well integrated, as part of
preparedness strategies, adopted by businesses for addressing disruptions (Pettit et al., 2019). Resilience
can be defined as a system’s ability to return to its normal operating capacity within some identified
bounds (Ioannidis et al., 2019), or to be more specific to supply chain systems, as the supply chain’s
adaptive capacity to deal with disruption and quickly resume its previous performance (Belhadi, Kamble,
Fosso Wamba, et al., 2021). Ponomarov and Holcomb have formally defined supply chain resilience as
“the adaptive capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruption and
recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at the desired level of connectedness and
control over structures and function” (Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009, p. 131).

Maintaining supply chain resilience allows businesses to ensure a continuous supply for their products
(or services) to customers, despite turbulence in the environment. There are different approaches to
ensuring supply chain resilience and these can be proactive, reactive or a combination of both, with the
view to mitigate potential risks emerging in the environment (Lohmer et al., 2020). Existing scholarship
suggests that, irrespective of the exact strategy adopted, disruptions in supply chain systems necessitate
monitoring and controlling the environment on the one hand, and on the other hand being responsive
and flexible in resource orchestration and reconfiguration as and when needed (Ralston & Blackhurst,
2020). To achieve this, scholars indicate that what is needed is superior information processing
capabilities (Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso Wamba, et al., 2021), particularly because knowledge and
information exchange among supply chain partners is considered conducive to risk reduction (Brandon-
Jones et al., 2014). Indeed, information sharing can minimise ambiguities along the supply chain and
increase visibility and performance (Wong et al., 2021), especially at times when these are put to the
test. Wong et al., (2021) indicate that having access to accurate information before, during and after
disruptions is of paramount importance, and that this can be achieved via real-time information
exchange amongst supply chain partners. Such information exchange can support timely decision making
and enhance the efficiency of the supply chain system (Li & Lin, 2006).

Belhadi et al., (2021a, b, c) note that there has been an increasing interest in building supply chain
resilience via technological means, such as the exploitation of advanced technologies, like BDA and AI.
Indeed, such emerging technologies can significantly support building supply chain resilience through
the lens of accurate and timely data, information, and knowledge exchange among partners. For
example, predictive analytics can support the design of disaster-resilient supply chains because it
facilitates forecasting, decision making and speedier return to business-as-usual states (Hazen et al.,
2018). Similarly, AI can be deployed, often as part of an overall Industry 4.0 approach, for supporting
adaptation and evolution of smart information systems along the supply chain and as part of operations
management (Ralston & Blackhurst, 2020).

The Philippines has indicated promising signs of digitalizing as the application of technology in the
country’s supply chain can already be seen. At the onset of the pandemic, business quickly adjusted their
communication channels and shifted from face-to-face operations to an online setting; a similar trend
can be observed in how society has gradually favored contactless transactions. Some companies have
also applied technology to effectively gather data wherein systems can identify, analyze, and predict
consumer behavior. Ultimately, this results in actionable data, which enables stakeholders to make data-
driven business decisions.

Although stakeholders should tread carefully when digitalizing supply chain processes, it is important
that businesses start digitalization efforts sooner rather than later. By taking on the challenge of
proactively initiating digital reform to one’s own supply chain processes, these businesses will be able to
fully capitalize on the benefits brought about by the digital revolution.

Supply chain management (SCM) as a philosophy relies on the effective design and integration of the
supply chains and is founded on strong organizational relationships, linked processes, information
systems, and performance measurements (Fawcett, Magnan, & McCarter 2008). SCM is an important
management function that integrates the demand and supply functions and links the different players of
the supply chain (the customers, manufacturers, intermediaries, and suppliers) (CSCMP, 2016).
Managing the supply chain is critical given the need of companies to deliver to their customers their
products and services at the right time, place, quantity, and quality. SCM, therefore, should be from a
holistic and integrated perspective (Metz, 1998; Blackwell & Blackwell, 1999; Mentzer et al., 2001;
Cavinato, 2002; Lambert, Garcia-Dastugue, & Croxton, 2005).

Oversupply and price volatility remain the perennial problems of the local fishing industry, which
frequently results to the fishers’ loss of income and wastage. Through the illustration of the supply chain
of lawlaw in the municipality of Bulan, factors that contribute to oversupply and price volatility were
identified. The study conducted interviews and focus group discussions to the entities involved in the
supply chain, particularly the fishers and fish brokers and dealers. Participants held that factors
contributing to oversupply are the instances of low demand from sardines’ factories and overharvesting
during peak seasons, while factors contributing to price volatility are the low demand from end-buyers,
ice shortage, high cost of operation, and price manipulation of local brokers. Fishers recommend
installation of cold storage and ice plant facilities, formation of active fisherfolks’ organization and
cooperative, and setting of price cap. Local brokers also recommend to regulate harvest during heydays
and urge sardines’ factories to increase order booking. Both entities recommend the expansion of
market by inviting more buyers and investors through local government intervention. The study
recommends the serious intervention of the local government through sound policies and economic
plan. Through the identified factors and the suggestions provided by the entities in the supply chain,
measures that can be provided to local policymakers were proposed in the study to address the
problems of the local fishing industry.

You might also like