A Behavioural risk perspective of Supply Chain Management

Revue des Etudes et Recherches en Logistique et Développement (RERLED) | Edition 2019 – Vol 1, N° 1 | ISSN 2458-5890

1

A Behavioural risk perspective of Supply Chain Management: A

General Overview

ELMOUNTASSER Meriem

[email protected]

Doctorante , Université Hassan II - Casablanca ,Faculté des Sciences Juridiques

,Economiques et Sociales Ain Sebaà. Laboratoire de Modélisation Appliquée à l'Economie et la Gestion , MAEGE

Introduction

In the last years, the environment of supply chain management (SCM)have known many

changes in technology, operations, information systems, methods and models (Poser, 1970).

However, one component has not changed. From manufacturing and services to supply chains

and R&D, people remain a critical element of the system.

This article is in general an overview of behavioral issues in SCM and how the behaviour of

people, employees and managers influences the supply chain performance.As Hayes,

Wheelwright and Clark (1988) stated, “Superior performance is ultimately based on the

people in an organization. The right management principles, systems, and procedures play an

essential role, but the capabilities that create a competitive advantage come from people,

their skill, discipline, motivation, ability to solve problems, and their capacity for learning“

(Hayes, Wheelwright, & Clark, 1988).

From that perspective, it appears that people are the critical component of the organizational

system and that is essential , for improving supply chain performance , to develop models that

correctly describe people’sbehavior(Tokar, 2010). This paper reviews the adoption of the

behavioral approach to study SCMand existing behavioral research related to supply chain

risk management.

We will review some examples from literature on origins of behavioral economics, behavioral

operations, and behavioral supply chain management. We discuss how behavioural research

results can be relevant for supply chain related phenomena and how psychological dimensions

in logistics can be interesting for future research. In addition, behavioral factors that may

inhibit a decision-making will be explained in the following chapters.

By the end of this paper, we are making the link between the new concept of Behavioural

Supply Chain Management (BSCM) and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) in order to

show how human behaviour presents an important factor of risk. Thus, a possible behavioural

approach to risk management is further described, some of the most common approaches to

risk management are discussed.

mailto:[email protected]


2

I- From Behavioural Economics to BSCM

1- Behavioral economics & Behavioral Operations

According to the theory of industrial organization, the branch of microeconomics that studies

strategic behavior, rationality is illustrated by four behavioral hypotheses:

- Behavior is mostly motivated by self-interested and stable monetary concerns, or by the

utility derived from amassing wealth;

- Behavior is based on conscious, cognitive, and deliberate decisions;

- Decisions are based on all available information; and

- Decisions optimize a given objective function.

A different human behavior beyond these hypotheses(for example the analysis of decisions

through heuristic models), provides adequate evidence to invalidate or put into question the

foundations of the theory of utility because the decision will in this case be influenced by

behavioral elements. The cause of these deviations may be traced to specific decision biases,

cognitive limitations, bounded rationality, social preferences, motivational issues, or other

behavioral factors. They are therefore elements for a behavioural research framework. (DONOHUE & SIEMSEN, 2010).

To set the scope of this behavioural research framework, economic researchers started to

gain an overarching view of existing debates in this area leading to the creation of the

behavioural economy field driving towards theories and models that accurately account for

human behaviour (Bendoly et al., 2006).He explained that most models employed by

neoclassical economists to predict economic behaviour assume that people remain completely

rational in their decision-making.

According to empirical researches,these models have been validated in few studies but proved

inaccurate in others. The results have shown that the predictions of researchers do not

correspond to the empirical results. As a result, researchers began to develop a new theory

that supports both previously supported results from the existing theory and the new

anomalies. The current transition from economics to behavioral economics goes exactly in

range with this research perspective. In purpose to resolve the gaps between the theory

initially developed and these results through the discipline of behavioral economics was

created (Tokar, 2010). Behavioral economists generalize existing neoclassical economic

theory by integrating psychological or behavioral factors (Bendoly and al , 2006 ).

Although studies related to behavioral issues have been studied extensively in several areas

including economics, accounting, marketing and management, its study remains relatively

limited on operations management field Bendoly et al. (2006).As Boudreau and al (2003)

stated, operations management and human behaviour had been initially considered as two

separate fields.

The interest behind the research in behavioral operations is studying the influence of human

behaviour in operations. It shows how the human component in operations significantly

influences operating systems’ work, performance and management interventions’ response

(Loch & Wu, 2007). It is a complicated task to study the human behaviour.


3

From one hand, behavior’s deviation influences the outcome of the operational systems. For

this reason, understanding these inconsistencies for overall operational efficiency has become

a key field of interest for researchers (Sood& Sharma, 2015). On the other hand, the study of

human behavior is the heart of research in behavioral operations. To improve operational

functions and systems, special attention is given to understanding and analyzing cognitive and

behavioral factors.(Sood & Sharma, 2015).

As Bendoly and al (2006) outlined “ A common factor in this breakdown is people. When it

comes to implementation, the success of operations management tools and techniques, and

the accuracy of its theories, relies heavily on our understanding of human behavior. Lack of

trust between supply chain partners, incentive misalignment, and natural risk aversion are

but three behavioral issues that can negatively impact operational success. “.

In behalf of new investigations, leading to new observations, we bridge the gap between this

traditional style on managing operations and new directions in operations management

research. By incorporating behavioural factors into Operations Management work, Boudreau

et al (2003) highlighted that while appraising performance of operating systems there must be

analysis of both technical and human aspects.This includes both operations management

factors and human resource management factors. He believed that people are irrational and

have different decision-making abilities. They take different decisions in different contexts,

which leads to differences in operating performance.

For more details about researches that reflect the wide range of current research activity

in behavioral OM , Gans and Croson (2008) conducted a both deductive and inductive work

that draws on multiple reference disciplines: experimental and behavioral economics,

judgment and decision making from psychology, and organizational behavior and decision

analysis from management.

2- From Behavioural Operations Management to BSCM

Behavioural operations imports knowledge from a number of fields like psychology,

economics and other social and behavioural sciences. This knowledge is being used for taking

various operations decisions. Some of the decisions can prove to be liabilities for system and

some of these can be assets(Sood & Sharma, 2015).

For instance, Bendoly and al (2006) developed a framework where they identified and

classified behavioural assumptions employed in existing models in operations management

contexts (namely, product development, quality management, procurement and strategic

sourcing, and supply chain management). It is useful to determine uncover areas for which

behavioural research may be most beneficial. Likewise, researchers in logistics and SCM can

easily use these frameworks in order to create a body of knowledge of behavioural research in

this area.

Despite focusing on operations management, a limited number of publications helped to

create the “BSCM” field. As can be seen in figure 1, Schorsch and al (2017), in their

metatheory of BSCM, introduced the emergence of the research field and presented its

structure. Based on their analysis from the behavioural perspective, they concluded that they

are few contributions discussing the human side and notably the cognitive and social -

psychological dimensions in supply chain management.


4

Fig 1:BSCM research framework including numbers of contribution per category

(Schorsch and al., 2017)

They exist several levels in studying the behavioral human dimension. This multi-level

structure describes concretely what boosts people’s behavior inside organizations.

Behavior can be the result of interaction within actors (within individual, within team, within

firm and within network). It may also be resulting from the interaction between actors

(between individuals, between individuals and groups and between groups) (Schorsch and al.,

2017).

It helps answering the question: “What are the factors that are responsible for the way

individuals and groups in supply chains behave? ».The psychological factors, of various

actors or various types of relations in the behavioral context, are the major cause of any

human behavior(Tokar, 2010). Researchers can adapt decision models assumptions or create

new models by understanding how people respond to specific stimuli.

II- Body of empirical behavioral research in Supply Chain

Management

Researchers in economics have shown more concerns in the field of human behaviour and the

number of researches seems to be limited in the area of supply chain management. Current

literature seems to have ignored the micro to macro impact of human behaviour in logistics

(Donohue & Siemsen, 2010). In particular, it seems to be deficient considering the importance

of the human aspect. Despite this, we will try to identify some empirical work conducted in

logistics and SCMfrom a behavioral perspective.

1- Forecasting :

Judgmental forecasting (also called predicting) using time series is one of the trends of

literature that analyses human reactions. Usually, researchers focus on studying the capacity

of human in analyzing time series compared to computer algorithms.

Today, the main objective is to answer the question: “How to improve the accuracy of

judgmental forecasting?”More researches are devoted to analyze forecaster's behaviour and


5

understand their biases relative to statistical methods under different conditions(DONOHUE

& SIEMSEN, 2010). They are investigating, including provision of feedback, decomposition,

combining and correction of human judgemement (Lawrence and al , 2006).

2- Inventory management :

Mainly based on cognitive psychology, behavioral research in SCMoffers the possibility of

investigating decision-maker’s behavior (Gino and Pisano ,2008 ; Konstantinos and

Katsikopoulos, 2010).

For example, in decision-making related to inventory management, such Bullwhip effect

(Ancarani and al , 2013; Uthor & Özer, 2014; Schorsch et al., 2017;Tobergte & Curtis, 2013),

Newsvendor problem(Su, 2008; Nagarajan & Shechter, 2014; Pournader and al , 2017) and

Supply line underweighting (Wang et al., 2014;Croson and al , 2014), loss aversion and risk

aversion bias, were mostly studied. It helped to further explain further the differences in

efficiency that could not be described,only,from the operational point of view.

Since this is a research component in behavioral economics concerning decision-making

under uncertainty, this focus on inventory planning is not surprising (Pournader et al., 2017).

Behavioral factors are the main cause of inventory disruptions. It might be the inability to

coordinate with others or other cognitive limitations, which makes it clear that behavioral

factors have an imminent impact.

3- Product Development / Product Design:

In project management and product development, decision-making becomesa critical task

giving its inter-temporal aspect. Similarly in supply chain management, decision makers face

uncertain, complex and ambiguous planning and coordination tasks. In the development of

new products and the management of R & D, ambiguity and complexity are

prominent(Tobergte & Curtis, 2013).

The decision-makers' attitudes towards ambiguity as well as their perception of task’s

complexity, problem selection and problem formulation clearly affect decision-making. It

becomes more difficult to solve problems in a complex and ambiguous environment(Tobergte

& Curtis, 2013). This can indeed be formally modeled in SCMsettings. For example,Wu and

al (2008) join ambiguity aversion in a model of fair process.

In supply chain management, the use of cross-functional teams help to accelerate and better

integrate the necessary flow of information. It is an essential element in the development of

new products (DONOHUE & SIEMSEN, 2010). As mentioned before, behavior can be the result of

interaction within actors (Teams included). In the same vein, many researches analyze the

behavioral implications of such teams, such as the factors in which they create innovation for

new products development.

4- Interactions in the supply chain :

One of the common issues in the SCM is to understand, design and better manage interactions

between the supply chain partners. Whether it is a supply contracts, a data-sharing system or

collaborative forecasting programs, these different interaction’s forms are part of a theoretical

dynamic game. In this dynamic, each actor tries to maximize its own profit, and as a result,


6

this behavior would influence the performance of the global supply chain(DONOHUE &

SIEMSEN, 2010; Tobergte & Curtis, 2013).

The breadth of previous research shows that behavioral problems can affect the efficiency of

supply networks, whether at the level of individual decision-makers or their interactions with

other individuals, groups or even organizations (Schorsch and al., 2017, Pournader and al.,

2017).

5- Altruistic behaviour in SCM :

The concept altruistic behavior’s interpretation in the supply chain refers, according to Boute

& Lambrecht, (2007)to the idea that the optimal overall performance is not obtained by the

optimal behavior (profit maximization) of each actor individually or independently of other

actors in the supply chain. The idea is oneself sacrifice for the benefit of others. The

coordination mechanisms within the supply chain translate this altruistic behavior through

buy-back contracts, revenue sharing contracts, and quantity flexibility contracts, information

sharing and collaborative forecasts and other forms of member’s interactions(Boute &

Lambrecht, 2007).

For example, and in the same logic of interactions explained above, the producer as a leader

in the game, should be responsible for the supply chain. This implies that it must take into

account not only its own profit, but also the profit of the retailer, that is, the profit of the entire

supply chain. As explained by Smith's theory on the invisible hand of market, manufacturer

behaves like a government that takes into account the total social utility of the nation while

retailer decisions are significantly influenced not only by its own type but also by

manufacturer’s type (Ge & Hu, 2012). As Ge & Hu (2012) concluded : “A manufacturer, as a

leader, should find an egoistic retailer, while a retailer, as a follower, should find a

manufacturer with altruistic liability, to form a good chain.”

6- Trust :

As previously, discussed, the assumption of economic theories is that each economic actor

seeks to maximize its own profit. It is therefore normal to contract relations. When writing

contracts, partners often spend time describing how to manage value gaps. The partner in a

position of strength seeks to impose the most favorable operational modefor him. In order to

be protected against risks , the partner transfer them to the other one when concluding the

contract(Chain, n.d.). It is precisely in the context of this growth that logistics partnership

occupies a major place. For this reason, it is crucial to look at the characteristics are

associated with partnership’s success. Therefore, researchers a little apprehended the role of

trust. (Morana, 2000, & 2002, n.d.)(Brulhart, 2014).

In this regard, trust reduces the risks of opportunistic behavior and allows the implementation

of specific investments to improve the effectiveness of the relationship and increase the

economic benefits. The trust therefore appears to have a positive effect on the success of the

partnership. In the logistics context, the authors emphasize also that trust will reduce the

perception of risk related to uncertainty about expected future earnings and behavior anti-

cooperative of the other party(Brulhart, 2014).

7- Information Sharing :

Coordination policy consists in structuring and managing the exchange of information

between the different supply chain members. In fact, some companies may have more or

better information than other members of the supply chain. Thus, supply chain partners will


7

not generally all have the same level of knowledge about final market demand. It depends on

their position in the chain(Dupont, 2013). For example, a retailer has the opportunity to obtain

information about the application through their points of sale. He can then refuse to share this

information with his supplier or decide to modify it. The supplier in this case will need to

develop its capacity requirements and production plans based on the retailer's orders placed.

This situation can then lead to bullwhip effect described previously. In addition, each

company also does not have access to local information such as the stock level of partners, or

the internal cost structures of other actors, and therefore do not know the exact expression of

their utility function.

There is a large body of literature that studies the value of information sharing in the supply

chain practices(Uthor & Özer, 2014). Existing work is differentiated in many ways, such as

the level of information sharing , shared information and the meaning of sharing. The

indicators for assessing the value of this sharing as well as the approaches and applications

being implemented place to concretize the information sharing phenomenon(Li and al ,

2006).

III- BSCM within a SCRM perspective

Olson (2008) defines the concept of risk in the supply chain as the exposure to risk events

from the external environment and the internal organizational processes that negatively affects

the supply chain.But, in the existing literature, it is generally difficult to overcome the

confusion between the risk and the uncertainty (Tang & Musa, 2011). Both risk and

uncertainty share a lack of knowledge about a future outcome, but the two concepts are not

exactly the same. In particular, it is not clear to distinguish risk and uncertainty in supply

chain operations.

SCRMis a cross-section of supply chains management sets and risk management. In the past

few years, the attention towards this concept has significantly increased(Wagner and bode ,

2006). The idea is to adopt risk management approaches with the ultimate goal of ensuring

the continuity and efficiency of the supply chain operations. Companies are required to

monitor various impacts on multiple levels in order to be and stand proactive. Only this way,

companies will provide themselves with a chance to work in an increasingly uncertain

business environment, especially that today’s supply chains become more complex than

before.

From a logistic outlook, the interaction between members (either between the supply chain

and its environment or between individual members of the same supply chain) becomes more

complex and harder to manage since uncertainty is expanding and new models are built in

SCM contexts (van der Vaart and van Donk, 2008).

We remind that Peter Drucker, in linking competitive strategies with human resource

management practices, stated that people’s dimension holds the primary place within any

system (Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Consequently, we notice that member’s interactions

bring out a noticeable impact on resulting supply chain behaviour.

While speaking about the human resource in general, the human nature is supposed to be the

primary factor of uncertainty in any project (Măzăreanu, V. P. ,2012). On his side ; Ancarani

(2011) ; quoting Wilding (1998); states that in risk management, certain tangible and

intangible elements become part of the equation where “ intangible elements refers to

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4164753

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4164753

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/noticeable


8

psychological effects tied to individual cognition and emotions, social interactions, and

organizational culture”.

According to Ruel and al (2017), in their investigation about uncertainties linked to

information systems in the supply chain, researches in SCM tried to classify the typologies of

risks and the uncertainties within the supply chains, but the list can never be exhaustive. They

noticed that in the majority of the studies; the researchers show more interest in risks rather

than both risk and uncertainty factors. They claimed that, quoting Tang and Nurmaya Musa

(2011), few studies really focus on the causes of the risks since “most mention the sources

without discussing the causes”. For example, we study human errors causing accidents failure

without discussing the major cause of these failures, which are stress on crew, lack of training

and long working times ( For details , see Tuncel and Alpan, 2010).

The application of risk management concept in business organizations generally and in the

supply chain , particularly started in the middle of the last century (Živković and Komatina,

2017). The concept is recent and covers usually the operational and financial aspects of the

decision-making process. It depends on reactions to internal and external environment (Blos

and al , 2009). In his definition, Bredell (2008)states that SCMrepose essentially on three

strategies: risk taking, avoiding risk and risk transfer.

Generally, the optimal management of material flows and associated information flows

generate risks in supply chain. Yet, it is important to mention that risks can occur in different

forms and at any stage of the supply chain “from initial suppliers to final customers. They can

interrupt the supply of materials or the demand for products; they can cause sudden peaks in

demand or collapses. They can range in scope from a minor delay through to a natural

disaster; their effects can range from short-term and lasting only a few minutes through to

permanent damage(Waters, 2011)”.

Within a SCRMperspective , some researchers focus on information risks (Rao & Goldsby,

2009), control risks (Christopher & Peck, 2004), statutory risks (Harland and al , 2003) ,

information Systems risks (Ruel and al, 2017). Only few studies (Tokar, 2010 ;Ancarani & Di

Mauro, 2011 ;Schorsch and al., 2017 ;Thornton and al., 2017 ; Wieland and Wallenburg ,

2012; Croson and al ,2008) focus more on studying human behaviour uncertainties.

In that way , many companies started to realize the fact that in addition to the "traditional"

risks arising from their business activities, another kind of behavioural risks have their

sources in closer cooperation and the interdependence of members within the supply

chain(Kersten and al , 2007).

Today, considering globalization and the growing complexity of logistics networks and

supply chains, risks associated with the supply chain are trending upwards. This, often have

negative effects on the decision-making process of logistics managers. The example of

decision making relating to the improvement of logistics costs in a Lean management context

is recurrent.

Empirical researches in SCRM has proved that it is difficult to work in conditions where the

level of risk is relatively high. Therefore, managers tend to reduce their perception of risk and

may expose biased behavior. For example, being overconfident may bias perceptions about

future operations, future risks, and therefore about future results(Ancarani et al., 2013; Aren et

al., 2016).

John J. Brown, the director of SCRM at the multinational company Coca-Cola confirmed that

psychological factors affects risk perception and how companies become more aware about


9

these factors in improving risk management. “Psychology plays a much larger role in risk

assessment and risk management than most people realize”, he says.

Conclusion

As first line of research, it is important to clarify the different aspects related to the human

component in logistics and supply chain management since the theme still little explored.

We provided, through this paper, a basic overview about this research area. In this concern,

researches remain insufficient to meet the challenges of the dynamic nature of risks and the

complexity of supply chains. One of the lines of research consists of considering possible

relationship between work-related psychosocial risks in SCM context and the outcome (or

performance) of the employees.

Studies should handle this concern by focusing on new research paths that cover the other

aspects of human behaviour and integrating cognitive and social psychological research into

supply chain performance models and supply chain models for risks assessment.

Bibliography:

ANCARANI, A., DI MAURO, C. ;, & D’URSO, D. (2013). A human experiment on

inventory decisions under supply uncertainty. Intern. Journal of Production Economics,

142(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.001

ANCARI, A., & DI MAURO, C. (2011). Supply Chain Innovation for Competing in Highly

Dynamic Markets:Challenges and Solutions. In J. Lindsay (Ed.), International Journal

(BUSINESS R, pp. 290–292). HERSEY: Business Science Reference.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-585-8.ch019

AREN, R. T., Operations, B., Author, M. O. T., Doi, C. H. L., Please, O. M., CHRISTOPH,

L., … Operations, B. (2016). Accepted Manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12666

BENDOLY, E., DONOHUE, K., & L.SCHULTZ, K. ; (2005). Behavior in operations

management : Assessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. Journal of

Operations Management, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.10.001

BLOS, M. F., QUADDUS, M., WEE, H. M., & WATANABE, K. (2009). Supply chain risk

management (SCRM): a case study on the automotive and electronic industries in Brazil.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 247–252.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910970072

BOUTE, R., & LAMBRECHT, M. (2007). Altruistic Behavior in Supply Chain Management.

Tijdschrift Voor Economie En Management, 52, 499–513.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542710000024

BREDELL, R. (2008). Supply chain risk management: a logistics perspective. Retrieved from

https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/services/Download/uj:2931/CONTENT1

BRULHART, F. (2014). Le rôle de la confiance dans le succès des partenariats verticaux

logistiques : le cas des coopérations entre industriels agro-alimentaires et prestataires

logistiques, (January 2002), 50–78.


10

CHAIN, S. (n.d.). Initier l ’ approche Supply Chain, 1–10.

CHRISTOPHER, M., & PECK, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The

International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275

CROSON , BENNETT, D. M. (2014). Behavioral Environmental Economics. British Journal

of Psychiatry, 205(1), 76–77. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.205.1.76a

DONOHUE, K., & SIEMSEN, E. (2010). BEHAVIORAL OPERATIONS :

APPLICATIONS IN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. Wiley Encyclopedia of

Operations Research andManagement Science, 1–12.

DUPONT, L. (2013). Modélisation par la théorie des jeux des échanges de prévisions dans un

réseau d ’ entreprises Natallia Taratynava To cite this version : HAL Id : tel-00802540

présentée par Natallia TARATYNAVA Modélisation par la théorie des jeux des

échanges de prévisio.

GANS, N; CROSON, R. (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue on Behavioral Operations.

GE, Z., & HU, Q. (2012). Who Benefits from Altruism in Supply Chain Management ?,

2012(March), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajor.2012.21007

HARLAND, C., BRENCHLEY, R., Supply, H. W.-J. of P. and, & 2003, undefined. (n.d.).

Risk in supply networks. Elsevier. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409203000049

HAYES, R., WHEELWRIGHT, S., & CLARK, K. (1988). Dynamic manufacturing: Creating

the learning organization. Retrieved from https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=-

du_4MRtVzMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Hayes,+Wheelwright+and+Clark+(1988)+&ots

=KgY-zYFLL_&sig=05rSoTA6rRE44dQhaoKN486VNCk

KATSIKOPOULOS, K., Chain, G. G.-J. of S., & 2013, undefined. (n.d.). Behavioral

operations management: A blind spot and a research program. Wiley Online Library.

Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-

493x.2012.03285.x

KATSIKOPOULOS, K. V. (2010). BEHAVIORAL OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT: A

BLIND SPOT AND A RESEARCH PROGRAM GERD GIGERENZER Max Planck

Institute for Human Development Harding Center for Risk Literacy, (January), 3–7.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493x.2012.03285.x

KERSTEN, W., HOHRATH, P., & BÖGER, M. (2007). An Empirical Approach to Supply

Chain Risk Management : Development of a Strategic Framework. Proceeding POMS

Conference 2007, 1–20. Retrieved from

http://pomsmeetings.org/ConfProceedings/007/CDProgram/Topics/full_length_papers_fi

les/007-0507.pdf

LAWRENCE, M., GOODWIN, P., O’CONNOR, M., & ÖNKAL, D. (2006). Judgmental

forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years. International Journal of

Forecasting, 22(3), 493–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.03.007

LI, S., RAGU-NATHAN, B., RAGU-NATHAN, T. S., & SUBBA RAO, S. (2006). The

impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and

organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107–124.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.002


11

LOCH, C. (CHRISTOPH), & WU, Y. (2007). Behavioral operations management. Now

Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.scholarvox.com/catalog/book/10208945

MĂZĂREANU, V. P. (n.d.). About the human factor in risk management – primary source of

uncertainty.

MORANA, J., 2000, D. V. H.-G., & 2002, undefined. (n.d.). Le facteur humain: au cœur du

supply chain management. EUROPE JAPAN ECONOMIC …. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Morana%2C+J.%2C+%26+

Van+Hoorebeke%2C+D.+%282002%29.+Le+facteur+humain%3A+au+cœur+du+suppl

y+chain+management.+GESTION+2000%2C+%286%29%2C+131-141.&btnG=

NAGARAJAN, M., & SHECHTER, S. (2014). Prospect Theory and the Newsvendor

Problem. Management Science, 60(4), 1057–1062.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1804

OLSON, D. L., & DASH WU, D. (2010). A review of enterprise risk management in supply

chain. Kybernets, 39(5), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921011043198

POSER, E. G. (1970). Toward a theory of “behavioral prophylaxis.” Journal of Behavior

Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-

7916(70)90019-4

POURNADER, M., KACH, A., HOSSEIN, S., HAJIAGHA, R., & EMROUZNEJAD, A.

(2017). Investigating the impact of behavioral factors on supply network efficiency :

insights from banking ’ s corporate bond networks. Annals of Operations Research,

254(1), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2457-8

RAO, S., & GOLDSBY, T. J. (2009). Supply chain risks: a review and typology. The


https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954864

RUEL, S., OUABOUCH, L. ;, & Shaaban, S. (2017). Supply chain uncertainties linked to

information systems: a case study approach". Industrial Management & Data Systems,

117(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2016-0264

SCHORSCH, T., WALLENBURG, C. M., & WIELAND, A. (2017). The Human Factor in

SCM : Introducing a Meta-theory of Behavioral Supply Chain Management.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(4), 238–262.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2015-0268

SCHULER, R. S., & JACKSON, S. E. (1987). Identifying risk issues and research

advancements in supply chain risk management. Management, 1(3), 207–219.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275740

SOOD, A., & SHARMA, V. (2015). A Study of Behavioural Perspective of Operations.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 229–233.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.218

SU, X. (2008). Bounded Rationality in Newsvendor Models. Manufacturing & Service

Operations Management, 10(4), 566–589. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1070.0200

TANG, O., & MUSA, S. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply

chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, (133), 25–34.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.013


12

THORNTON, L., WIELAND, A., & HOBERG, K. (2017). The Human Factor in Logistics

and Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management, 1–2.

TOBERGTE, D. R., & CURTIS, S. (2013). Behavioral Operation Managemennt. Journal of

Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53).

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

TOKAR, T. (2010). Behavioural research in logistics and supply chain management. The


https://doi.org/10.1108/09574091011042197

TUNCEL, G., & ALPAN, G. (2009). Risk assessment and management for supply chain

networks: A case study. Computers in Industry, 61(3), 250–259.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.09.008

UTHOR, U. T. D. A., & ÖZER, S. Ö. (2014). Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information

Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States, 60(10), 2435–2460.

VAN DER VAART, T., & VAN DONK, D. P. (2008). A critical review of survey-based

research in supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Economics,

111(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.011

WAGNER, S., management, C. B.-J. of purchasing and supply, & 2006, undefined. (n.d.).

An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability. Elsevier. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409207000052

WANG, N., MA, Y., HE, Z., CHE, A., HUANG, Y., & XU, J. (2014). The impact of

consumer price forecasting behaviour on the bullwhip effect. International Journal of

Production Research, 52(22), 6642–6663.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.907513

WATERS, D. (2011). Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in

Logistics. ( the chatered institute of logistics and Transport, Ed.). london & phildelphia:

kogan page. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=-L9us3-Nu2UC&pgis=1

WILDING, R. (1998). The supply chain complexity triangle: Uncertainty generation in the

supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,

28(8), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039810247524

WU, Y., LOCH, C. H., & HEYDEN, L. VAN DER. (2008). A Model of Fair Process and Its

Limits. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(4), 637–653.

https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1070.0189

ŽIVKOVIĆ, D., & KOMATINA, N. (2017). Determination of the Level of Risk in

Manufacturing Supply Chain, (June), 153–160.

Documents

A Behavioural risk perspective of Supply Chain Management