International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics ManagementA model to define and assess the agility of supply chains: building on humanitarianexperienceAurelie Charles Matthieu Lauras Luk Van Wassenhove

Article information:To cite this document:Aurelie Charles Matthieu Lauras Luk Van Wassenhove, (2010),"A model to define and assess the agilityof supply chains: building on humanitarian experience", International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Iss 8/9 pp. 722 - 741Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600031011079355

Downloaded on: 18 October 2014, At: 13:42 (PT)References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2488 times since 2010*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:David M. Gligor, Beverly Wagner, Beverly Wagner, (2014),"THE ROLE OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT INACHIEVING SUPPLY CHAIN AGILITY", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss5/6 pp. -Xun Li, Chen Chung, Thomas J. Goldsby, Clyde W. Holsapple, (2008),"A unified model of supply chainagility: the work#design perspective", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp.408-435Helena Carvalho, Susana Duarte, V. Cruz Machado, (2011),"Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergenciesand synergies", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 151-179

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 465057 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

A model to define and assess theagility of supply chains: building

on humanitarian experienceAurelie Charles

Universite de Toulouse – Mines Albi, Albi, France

Matthieu LaurasUniversite de Toulouse – Mines Albi, Albi, France and

Toulouse Business School, Toulouse, France, and

Luk Van WassenhoveINSEAD, Fontainebleu, France

Abstract

Purpose – By constantly working in environments with high degree of uncertainty, humanitarianorganizations end up becoming specialists in the implementation of agile systems. Their counterpartsin profit-making organizations have a lot to learn from them in this domain. Volatility of demand,imbalance between supply and demand and disruptions are all factors that affect commercial supplychains and call for a high level of agility. The aims of this paper are twofold: first, to clearly define theconcept of supply chain agility, and second, to build a model for assessing the level of agility of asupply chain.

Design/methodology/approach – Three approaches are used in this research: literature review,case study and symbolic modeling.

Findings – The paper developed first, a framework for defining supply chain agility and second, amodel for assessing and improving the capabilities of humanitarian and commercial supply chains interms of agility, based on an analysis of humanitarian approaches.

Research limitations/implications – The model has been developed thanks to inputs fromhumanitarian practitioners and feedbacks from academics. The practical application to varioushumanitarian relief operations and commercial supply chains is yet to be done.

Originality/value – This paper contributes significantly to clarifying the notion of supply chainagility. It also provides a consistent, robust and reproducible method of assessing supply chain agility,which seems appropriate for both humanitarian and business sectors. Finally, it is complementary toexistant research on humanitarian logistics. It shows that though humanitarian professionals have alot to learn from the private sector, the reverse is also true.

Keywords Supply chain management, Aid agencies, Flexible organizations, Modelling

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and research questionsOne of the particularities of humanitarian logistics is the level of uncertainty they have tocope with. Every day, in many parts of the world, humanitarian workers are confronted

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The authors are grateful to Professor Uche Okongwu (Toulouse Business School) for helpingimprove the standard of the English language used in this paper. Their thanks also go to IFRCLogistics and Resources Mobilization Department, MSF Bordeaux and the French Red Cross forthe time and information they shared.

IJPDLM40,8/9

722

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 40 No. 8/9, 2010pp. 722-741q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600031011079355

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

with various forms of uncertainty. Given that beneficiaries’ needs evolve over time andare really difficult to forecast, demand and supply vary on a daily basis. Also, there aremany cause-and-effect interactions that affect operations. For example, an earthquakecan provoke a flood if a brimming lake is formed by landslides from the earthquake.Local infrastructure may also be damaged to the extent that the supply chain networkhas to be continuously rethought, along with the reconstruction of roads, airports andother key elements of the network. Humanitarian logisticians have, therefore developedtools and methods to respond quickly to short-term changes, thereby improving theagility of their supply chain.

This high level of agility is more and more required in the private sector (Kleindorferand Van Wassenhove, 2004). Many examples can be used to illustrate the lowresponsiveness of most commercial supply chains. After the earthquake in Taiwan in1999, the prices of global semiconductor were almost doubled, and of the 62 companiesbased in Asia, only 21 percent had full business contingency plans to protect themselvesagainst business interruption (World Economic Forum, 2008). Demand volatility is alsobecoming higher in the private sector. Owing to market turbulence, demand in almostevery industrial sector seems to be more volatile than it used to be in the past (Christopherand Lee, 2004). Consequently, being able to react quickly to changes is an essentialcapability for commercial supply chains (Kisperska-Moron and Swierczek, 2009).

Cross-learning opportunities between business and humanitarian sectors have beenlisted by many authors (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006). Recently,disaster relief is becoming a testing ground for many researchers in logistics. More often,they propose methods for implementing in the humanitarian sector the tools that theyinitially designed for the business sector. Yet, to date, no work seems to have been donethe other way round. In other words, no one has explicitly identified the best practicesthat the business sector can borrow and adapt from humanitarian experts. This paperaims to fill this gap in line with our belief that the business and humanitarian sectors canboth learn from each other.

From an academic point of view, supply chain agility is becoming a major field ofresearch. It is highlighted as one of the fundamental characteristics of the best supplychains (Lee, 2004). Given the complexity that is linked to a high level of constraints anduncertainty, the humanitarian sector is an interesting field to study. Moreover, theypresent a potential added value for both the humanitarian and the private sectors. It isvery important for humanitarian organizations to explicitly establish the best practicesfound in relief chains, and by so doing, they clarify their achievements and facilitate theramification of these best practices. The business sector could then learn from them inorder to improve the agility level of their supply chain. It would enable them to deal withsupply, demand and environment uncertainties, and this capability is becoming an orderwinner for many commercial supply chains.

Many supply chain managers are, therefore in search of methods that would enablethem to better assess the level of agility of their supply chain. Unfortunately, in theliterature, there is no unanimously accepted framework and consistent system fordefining and measuring supply chain agility.

We can therefore formulate two research questions (RQ) as follows:

RQ1. How should supply chain agility be defined?

RQ2. How should supply chain agility be assessed?

The agilityof supply chains

723

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Based on the review of literature, we will, in Section 2, address the RQ1 and present ourframework in the form of a house that we will refer to as the “house of supply chainagility”. The RQ2 will be studied in Section 3. By analyzing the capabilities of themajor existing approaches, this study evaluates the different ways of assessing supplychain agility. A comparative analysis of the main features of both the humanitarianand the commercial supply chains is done in order to ensure that our assessment isvalid for both sectors. An application of the model in the humanitarian sector is used toillustrate the logic of our approach. Finally, in Section 4, we will present our analysis,conclusions, limitations and perspectives for further research. Figure 1 shows a step bystep view of our approach.

2. How should supply chain agility be defined?In the last decade, agility has been one of the key concepts discussed by many authors.We have, therefore reviewed the literature in order to gather its various definitions anddimensions as it applies to supply chains. In this paper, we do not intend to provide anexhaustive literature review but simply a quick scan that is elaborate enough to enableclarify the notion of supply chain agility and to build a consistent assessment model. Theconclusions of our literature review are presented in the following paragraph.

Supply chain agility is usually defined as the ability to respond to unanticipatedchanges (Sheffi, 2004). The focus on agility from the supply chain perspective emergedin the year 2001 and was first initiated by Van Hoek et al. (2001). According to Lee (2004),the main objectives of an agile supply chain are responding quickly to short-termchanges in demand (or supply) and handling external disruptions smoothly. Sometimesagility could be mistaken for other similar but different concepts such as adaptabilityand resilience. While agility is being able to deal with and take advantage of uncertaintyand volatility, adaptability is rather used for more profound medium-term changes.Adaptable supply chains adjust their design to meet structural shifts in markets and,modify and adapt the supply network to strategies, products and technologies(Lee, 2004). Figure 2 shows an illustrated difference between agility and adaptability. Asfor resilience, it aims to mitigate identifiable risks and ensure continuity in the firm’sbusiness. Christopher and Peck (2004) defined resilience as the ability of a system toreturn to its original state or move to a new and more desirable state after beingdisturbed. Differences between agility and resilience are depicted in Table I.

Figure 1.Our approach step by step

Deficiency ofclear and agreed framework

of supply chain agility

Deficiency ofadequate tool to assess

supply chain agility

Definition ofsupply chain

agility and keyagility

capabilities

Scope of ourstudy imposed by

the differencesbetween

commercial andhumanitariansupply chains

Case study andliterature review:humanitarians’

business expertisecompared to

academics findings

Symbolicmodelling:

Definition ofagility metricsand assesmentmethodology

Application ofthe model in the

humanitariansector

Contribution:House of supply chain agility

Contribution:Maturity model to assess the

agility of supply chains

IJPDLM40,8/9

724

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

To achieve a high level of agility, a supply chain has to acquire some key capabilities.Many authors have already listed one or more elements associated with agility. Table IIshows the definitions and details of these capabilities. The aim of this section is toillustrate all the facets of agility that have to be worked on. The house of supply chainagility (Figure 3) summarizes the main components, which enable the supply chain to beagile. We developed it based on a thorough literature review on agility.

According to Christopher and Towill (2000), a key characteristic of an agileorganization is flexibility. In other words, supply chain agility is an externally focusedcapability that is derived from flexibilities in the supply chain processes (Swafford et al.,2006). They thus assert that “procurement/sourcing flexibility”, “manufacturingflexibility” and “distribution/logistics flexibility positively impact supply chain agility”.Manufacturing flexibility is broken down into four competences (machine, labor,material handling and routing flexibilities) and two capabilities (volume and mixflexibility) (Zhang et al., 2003). Knowing that internal manufacturing flexibilitycompetencies are neither relevant to our focus on supply chains nor appropriate forservice providers such as humanitarians, we will restrict our study to capabilities aspertained to flexibility. We will, therefore adopt and study four flexibility capabilities(product, mix, volume and delivery flexibility) as they are defined and classified by Slack(2005), and summarized in Table II. There is abundant literature on the notion of agilemanufacturing (Yusuf et al., 1999; Sharifi and Zhang, 1999; Giachetti et al., 2003).

Consequently, flexibility is a requirement that is necessary to achieve supply chainagility. It is, therefore represented as the foundation of the house of agility. Though a keycomponent, it is not the only capability needed to achieve supply chain agility. Enhancedresponsiveness is also a major capability of an agile supply chain (Stevenson and Spring,2007). Two other key ingredients of agility are visibility and velocity (Christopher andPeck, 2004). A complementary capability is mentioned by Okongwu et al. (2008), forwhom agility in a supply chain is the combination of effectiveness and responsiveness ina flexible environment. As shown in Table II, our framework will be organized inthe following order and manner: flexibility is broken down into four capabilities

Figure 2.Agility vs adaptability

Transformation

Adaptability

AgilityTime

Cha

nge

Hours days Months One year or moreSource: McCullen et al. (2006)

Supply chain ability Structural properties Deals with Aims at

Agility Flexibility Volatility and uncertainty Quick satisfaction ofcustomer

Resilience Robustness Identifiable risk of disruption Business continuityTable I.

Agility vs resilience

The agilityof supply chains

725

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Cap

abil

itie

sD

efin

itio

ns

CS

CH

SC

Flexibility

Vol

um

efl

exib

ilit

yA

bil

ity

toch

ang

eth

ele

vel

ofag

gre

gat

edou

tpu

t(S

lack

,20

05)

þþ

þþþ

Ab

ilit

yto

chan

ge

orre

act

wit

hli

ttle

pen

alty

inti

me,

effo

rt,

cost

orp

erfo

rman

ce(D

eT

oni

and

Ton

chia

,20

05)

Del

iver

yfl

exib

ilit

yA

bil

ity

toch

ang

ep

lan

ned

oras

sum

edd

eliv

ery

dat

es(S

lack

,20

05)

þþþþ

Mix

flex

ibil

ity

Ab

ilit

yto

chan

ge

the

ran

ge

ofp

rod

uct

sm

ade

ord

eliv

ered

wit

hin

ag

iven

tim

ep

erio

d(S

lack

,20

05)

þþ

þþþ

Pro

du

ctfl

exib

ilit

yA

bil

ity

toin

trod

uce

nov

elp

rod

uct

s,or

tom

odif

yex

isti

ng

ones

(Sla

ck,

2005

)þþ

þ

Responsiveness

Rea

ctiv

ity

Ab

ilit

yto

eval

uat

ean

dta

ke

nee

ds

into

acco

un

tq

uic

kly

þþþþ

Ab

ilit

yto

resp

ond

toch

ang

ew

ith

inan

app

rop

riat

eti

me

fram

e(G

old

enan

dP

owel

l,20

00)

Vel

ocit

yA

bil

ity

toco

ver

nee

ds

qu

ick

lyþ

þþþ

Vis

ibil

ity

Ab

ilit

yto

kn

owth

eid

enti

ty,

loca

tion

and

stat

us

ofen

titi

estr

ansi

tin

gth

esu

pp

lych

ain

,ca

ptu

red

inti

mel

ym

essa

ges

abou

tev

ents

,al

ong

wit

hth

ep

lan

ned

and

actu

ald

ates

/ti

mes

for

thes

eev

ents

(Ver

non

,20

08)

þþ

þ

Effectiveness

Doi

ng

allt

he

rig

ht

thin

gs

Rel

iab

ilit

y(d

oin

gth

eri

gh

tth

ing

)A

bil

ity

tod

eliv

erth

eco

rrec

tp

rod

uct

,to

the

corr

ect

pla

ce,

atth

eco

rrec

tti

me,

inth

eco

rrec

tco

nd

itio

nan

dp

ack

agin

g,i

nth

eco

rrec

tq

uan

tity

,wit

hth

eco

rrec

td

ocu

men

tati

on,

toth

eco

rrec

tu

ser

(Su

pp

lyC

hai

nC

oun

cil,

2006

)

þþþ

þþ

Com

ple

ten

ess

(doi

ng

all)

Ab

ilit

yto

real

ize

the

goa

lsþþ

þþ

Notes:

CS

C–

asse

ssm

ent

for

com

mer

cial

sup

ply

chai

ns;

HS

C–

asse

ssm

ent

for

hu

man

itar

ian

sup

ply

chai

ns

Table II.Supply chain agilitycapabilities: definitionsand assessments

IJPDLM40,8/9

726

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

(volume, delivery, mix and product flexibilities), responsiveness into three capabilities(reactivity, velocity and visibility) and effectiveness is composed of completeness andreliability. All these enable to provide a quick and adequate response to short-termchanges. The definitions of these capabilities are given in Table II.

Based on this discussion, we can define supply chain agility as the ability to respondquickly and adequately to short-term changes in demand, supply or the environment.It is derived from the flexibility, responsiveness and effectiveness of the supply chain.

3. How should supply chain agility be assessed?If we presume that agility is the future business system that will replace the massproduction businesses of today (Kidd, 1995), then it will be of prime importance to have alogical, consistent, robust and reproducible model that will be used to assess supplychain agility. This is true for the business, as well as for the humanitarian sector where ahigh level of agility is needed. The use of a model to assess supply chain agility should:

. emphasize the vital need of humanitarians for preparedness, and this wouldconstitute an additional argument to motivate their donors to increase funds fordisaster preparedness actions;

. provide supply chain managers with effective ways of collaborating with otherstakeholders in order not only to enhance benchmarking and cross-organizationallearning, but also to mutually improve the agility capabilities of their supplychains; and

Figure 3.House of supply chain

agility

Agility

Quick and adequatereponse to short-term changes

Completeness

Reliability

Eff

ectiv

enes

s

Velocity

Reactivity

Visibility

Res

pons

iven

ess

Flexibility

Mix flexibilityVolume

flexibilityProduct

flexibilityDeliveryflexibility

The agilityof supply chains

727

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

. enable to measure performance, better manage skills and abilities and facilitateknowledge management, which constitutes a path toward self-improvement.

In this section, we will start by studying existing methods of assessing agility capabilities.Then, we will explain the reasons why we propose a benchmark for humanitarian supplychains and also discuss the consequences of this study of cross-organizational learningon the scope of our work. To carry out this benchmark, we have designed a case study.Indeed:

[. . .] the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningfulcharacteristics of real life events such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerialprocesses, changes in the neighborhood, international relations and the maturation ofindustries (Yin, 2002).

This fits our purpose to assess the agility of supply chains. For this study, we gathereddocuments, archival records and 12 semi-directive interviews of practitioners workingin various regions (Europe, Middle-East or Africa) and at different organizational levels(headquarters, regional logistics centers or field workers). This paper summarizes theevidence collected from the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) and RedCrescent Societies, “Medecins Sans Frontieres” (MSF) and the French Red Cross. Otherorganizations such as Oxfam and the World Food Program (WFP) were also approachedbut with more informal interviews.

Finally, we will present our model for assessing supply chain agility, its constructionand its implementation using a real-life case study. To build the assessment model, weused a symbolic modeling approach. A symbolic model is a representation of theperformance measure of a system in terms of its variables. This means that the attributesof the system are linked by an equation (Panneerselvam, 2004). In Section 2, we presenteda list of attributes of supply chain agility and in Sections 3.3 we will present a list ofmetrics associated to these capabilities, as well as a consistent method to evaluate andaggregate them.

3.1 Existing approaches for assessing the capability level of a systemThere are two main approaches for assessing the capability level of a system: maturityassessment and performance evaluation. We have looked at the capability maturitymodel (CMMIw) used for assessing the maturity level of organizations, the EuropeanQuality Award of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) used forauditing the quality competencies of companies and the supply chain operationsreference (SCOR) model used for measuring the performance of supply chains. TheEFQM model is not suitable for humanitarian organizations or for industrial sectorsthat are faced with frequent short-term changes. In both cases, the emphasis on strictprocedures and their documentation may particularly go against agility. For thesereasons, EFQM cannot be used in our specific case.

CMMIw cannot readily be used either. The design of a specific model for agilitycapabilities is necessary as CMMIw has more than 500 pages. This leaves little room forinterpretation and makes it a time-consuming process, and therefore not usable inhumanitarian organizations. Moreover, the emphasis on strict procedures and theirdocumentation could lead to a bureaucratic behaviour. It also aims to have stabilizedprocesses, which is not a fundamental characteristic of agile processes.

IJPDLM40,8/9

728

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Supply chain performance measurement systems, such as the SCOR model, use alanguage of common metrics with associated benchmarks and provide a platform forbest-in-class comparison and inspiration (Huan et al., 2004). Some of the performancedimensions in the SCOR model are required to achieve supply chain agility but the modelcannot be used to assess agility either, for it focuses on transactional efficiency ratherthan on the relationship with customers and suppliers (Lambert et al., 2005).

Finally, we believe that our quest to define a specific model for assessing agilityrepresents a real need that neither quality awards nor actual maturity models (orperformance measurement systems) can satisfy. Our proposition follows a similarapproach as maturity models but the assessment is done on performance dimensionsrather than on the completeness of the process implementation. This is because first,stabilized processes are not a fundamental characteristic of agile processes and second,processes are only one of the various areas to work on. People, products and partners arealso elements that impact the capability levels (Figure 4). Actually, to be able to reactquickly and adequately to short-term changes, specific processes are needed, but theseprocesses should be able to move quickly from one stabilized state to another. Havingthem stabilized may help, for example, in terms of visibility, but it is not enough toachieve agility.

3.2 Humanitarian supply chains: the experience of uncertaintiesThe notions of change and uncertainty that we have previously discussed are closelyconnected to that of agility. There are four sources of uncertainty: foreseeableuncertainties, residual risks (“what is left over after planning for foreseeable uncertainty”),complexities and unknown unknowns:

[. . .] those that do not have a definite formulation, have no stopping rule that allows oneto determine when the problem is solved, where solutions cannot be fully tested and theproblem cannot be generalized, and where there is ambiguity on the causes of the problem(Loch et al., 2006).

Agility would then mean to be able to respond quickly when confronted with any ofthese uncertainties. All these sources exist in the humanitarian world. There are manyoccasions where humanitarian supply chains have to develop their agility capabilitiesand they often do that successfully. One has to pay close attention to the elements thatdistinguish humanitarian supply chains from commercial supply chains in order totransfer the best practices of the former to the latter. Because of the differences, studies ofthe agility capabilities of humanitarian supply chains need to be filtered and adaptedbefore they can be used in the business sector (Table III). First, our study will focus on thewhole supply chain, except the manufacturing part, since it is irrelevant both from ahumanitarian point of view and from an academic perspective (see Section 2).

The choice of adequate semantics also needs to be considered. Within humanitarianorganizations, there is actually no consensus on the acceptance and the definition of thenotion of customer. In a commercial supply chain, a customer pays for the productor service he uses. In the humanitarian world, the end-user (or beneficiary) is anentity different from the buyer or donor. Similar comments can be made upstream of thesupply chain, where there are two kinds of suppliers: those who give products or money(donors), and those who are paid by the organization for the supply of the necessaryitems. Given these elements, we can, therefore say that the notion of supply chain(and hence the notion of supply chain agility) varies slightly from one sector to another.

The agilityof supply chains

729

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Figure 4.List of metrics

Met

rics

Cap

abili

ties

Ref

eren

ce

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

sup

plie

r le

ad ti

me

can

be e

xped

ited/

chan

ged

Vol

ume

flex

ibili

tyN

aras

imha

n an

d D

as (

1999

)E

xten

t of

exib

ility

(op

tions

) w

ithin

sup

plie

r co

ntra

cts

Vol

ume

flex

ibili

tyN

aras

imha

n an

d D

as (

1999

)N

umbe

r of

sup

plie

rs s

elec

ted

per

com

pone

nt o

n a

glob

al b

asis

Vol

ume

flex

ibili

tyK

ekre

et a

l. (1

995)

Num

ber

of c

ompo

nent

s pu

rcha

sed

per

supp

lier

Vol

ume

flex

ibili

tyK

ekre

et a

l. (1

995)

Ran

ge o

f po

ssib

le o

rder

siz

es f

rom

sup

plie

rsV

olum

e fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)N

umbe

r of

end

use

rs s

uppo

rted

by

each

dis

trib

utio

n fa

cilit

y, o

n av

erag

eV

olum

e fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)A

dequ

acy

betw

een

wor

ld w

ide

stor

age

capa

city

and

nee

dsV

olum

e fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)A

dequ

acy

betw

een

glob

al d

eliv

ery

capa

city

and

nee

dsV

olum

e fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)N

umbe

r of

item

s ha

ndle

d by

eac

h di

stri

butio

n fa

cilit

y, o

n av

erag

eM

ix f

lexi

bilit

ySe

thi a

nd S

ethi

(19

90)

Num

ber

of it

ems

per

orde

r ha

ndle

d by

eac

h di

stri

butio

n fa

cilit

y, o

n av

erag

eM

ix f

lexi

bilit

ySe

thi a

nd S

ethi

(19

90)

Num

ber

of w

orld

wid

e st

orag

e/di

stri

butio

n fa

cilit

ies

Del

iver

y fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)Pe

rcen

tage

of

user

ord

ers

fille

d fr

om a

ltern

ate

glob

al f

acili

ties

Del

iver

y fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)N

umbe

r of

ade

quat

e av

aila

ble

deliv

ery

mod

esD

eliv

ery

flex

ibili

tySe

thi a

nd S

ethi

(19

90)

Num

ber

of c

arri

ers

used

for

eac

h ty

pe o

f de

liver

y m

ode,

on

aver

age

Del

iver

y fl

exib

ility

Seth

i and

Set

hi (

1990

)D

eliv

ery

lead

tim

esD

eliv

ery

flex

ibili

tyV

an H

oek

et a

l. (2

001)

Lev

el o

f cu

stom

izat

ion

Prod

uct f

lexi

bilit

yV

an H

oek

et a

l. (2

001)

Inte

rmed

iate

use

r [a

nd e

nd u

ser]

invo

lvem

ent i

n w

ritin

g pr

oduc

ts s

peci

fica

tions

Rel

iabi

lity

Van

Hoe

k et

al.

(200

1)Pe

rcen

tage

of

the

dem

and

fulll

ed w

ithin

acc

epta

ble

time

fram

eC

ompl

eten

ess

Oko

ngw

u et

al.

(200

8)Pe

rcen

tage

of

wor

kfor

ce in

sel

f-di

rect

ed te

ams

Vel

ocity

Van

Hoe

k et

al.

(200

1)N

umbe

r of

org

aniz

atio

nal l

evel

sV

eloc

ityV

an H

oek

et a

l. (2

001)

Aut

hori

ty le

vel a

t whi

ch r

isks

can

be

take

n an

d de

cisi

ons

are

mad

eV

eloc

ityV

an H

oek

et a

l. (2

001)

Pres

ence

/exh

aust

iven

ess

of c

ontin

genc

y pl

ans

Vel

ocity

Num

ber

of e

mer

genc

y re

spon

se te

ams

Vel

ocity

Freq

uenc

y of

inte

rmed

iate

[an

d en

d us

er]

need

s as

sess

men

tR

eact

ivity

Kis

pers

ka-M

oron

et a

l. (2

009)

Ava

ilabi

lity

and

diff

usio

n of

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g id

entit

y, lo

catio

n an

d st

atus

of

entit

ies

tran

sitin

g th

e su

pply

cha

in (

peop

le, i

tem

s, e

tc.)

Vis

ibili

tyV

an H

oek

et a

l. (2

001)

Not

es:

Proc

ess

Part

ner

Peop

lePr

oduc

t

IJPDLM40,8/9

730

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

As a result, a clear statement on the scope of the study is required in order to clarify theother areas. In this paper, we focused on suppliers and end-users, but not on donors. Wealso did not consider the manufacturing part, thereby focusing on the elements that arecommon to most supply chains.

Another major difference lies in the lifecycle of each supply chain. Relief chains areproject oriented. They have a short lifecycle and are set up in specific conditions, thusfacing more uncertainties. They, therefore require a high level of agility. Not allcommercial supply chains require such agility capabilities. Consequently, a preliminaryassessment of the most appropriate level of agility for a given commercial supply chainis needed prior to any cross-learning implementation. Such a study may be inspired fromWeber, who proposes a tool for measuring an organization’s need for agility(Weber, 2002).

A last comparative element is the nature and size of flows in each supply chain.Regarding information flows, the role played by the media is incredibly highin humanitarian supply chains. It directly impacts the size and the complexity of therelief operations. With no media coverage, the number and commitment of donors,

Commercial supply chain Humanitarian supply chain So what?

Supply chainrange

From suppliers’ supplier tocustomers’ customer

From donors and suppliersto beneficiaries

Production of goods doesnot apply forhumanitarians

Customerdefinition

End user ¼ buyer End user(beneficiary) – buyer(donor)

Focus in this thesis is onend-users, not donors

Shelf life Some years, but tends toshorten

Some weeks to somemonths in total, mountingand dismantling includedProject oriented

Best practice transfer needsvalidation of relevance perbusiness case, but it fitswith the trend towardshorter life cycles ofproducts

Informationflow

Generally well structured High importance of themedia; means ofcommunication oftenreduced (no internet accesson field, etc.)

Visibility is more difficultto achieve for HSC

Humanflows

People flows þ knowledgetransfer

Financialflows

Bilateral and known Unilateral (from donor tobeneficiary) and uncertain

Supplier Only, known in advancegenerally, 2 or 3 on average

Supplier and/or donoruncertain and multiple

Actors Known, with alignedincentives

Multiplicity in nature, butscarcity innumbers þ misalignedincentives

High level of uncertaintyfor HSC, so higher level ofagility required. Bestpractice transfer needsvalidation of relevance perbusiness case

Demand Usually forecasted/known UncertaintiesEnvironment More and more volatile Highly volatile and

unstable

Table III.Main differences

between humanitarianand commercial

supply chains

The agilityof supply chains

731

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

and, therefore the number of items transiting the supply chain, tends to diminish. On thecontrary, over exposition leads to over reaction of donors and this creates someimbalance between the amount of items received and the amount of resources availableto manage them. Also, it often leads to a higher number of unsolicited items that get inthe way of relief operations and hinder the actual delivery of aid. Moreover, local meansof communication are often reduced at the end of a disaster; scarce internet access is anexample. Visibility is, therefore much more difficult to achieve for humanitarian supplychains.

The next step in the development of our assessment model entails creating explicithumanitarian methods that enable to achieve supply chain agility. David Kaatrud,former Chief of Logistics for the United Nations WFP, explains that in comparison to thebusiness sector, their:

[. . .] operational settings are typically very different and difficult, and to get supplies to themost remote areas, we may have to resort to a range of imaginative and unconventionaldelivery systems, from air-dropping to using elephants for transport (Tomasini andVan Wassenhove, 2009).

They also developed specific tools to better monitor their supply chains and enable aquicker response to changes. The humanitarian logistics software (HLS), for example,enables the IFRC to increase its supply chain visibility. Similar logistics software, suchas HELIOS, the second generation of HLS or SUpply MAnagement (SUMA) is in use orunder deployment in other agencies, namely Oxfam and World Vision International forHELIOS and the World Health Organization for SUMA. Specific platforms for sharinginformation have also been developed. ReliefWeb, the web site of United Nations JointLogistics Center or Humanitarian Information Centers allow various stakeholders to usethe information given to build their knowledge of the situation and, with it, take effectiveaction in the field (Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2005).

Short-term changes are thus humanitarians’ daily routine. To cope withuncertainties, they have developed quite a good number of methods. Whereas most ofthem are widespread in many organizations, others are not so commonly used. To helphumanitarians formalize those practices and enable the business sector to draw fromthem, we have designed and conducted a case study research as earlier explained. Themethods used by the IFRC to quickly respond to changes are shown in the Appendix.A reference to the corresponding methods that are listed in the literature is added. It isinspired from Lee (2004), Van Hoek et al. (2001), Swafford et al. (2006) and Lin et al. (2006).Surprisingly (or perhaps not), majority of the methods found in the literature are appliedin the humanitarian sector. Those that cannot be found have no application forhumanitarian supply chains since they concern agile manufacturing.

3.3 Supply chain agility assessment modelAs we mentioned earlier, humanitarian and commercial supply chains differ on manypoints. Therefore, for the transfer of best practices to be relevant, we need to focus on theagility metrics that are relevant for both supply chains. This leads to a fundamentalquestion: how can agility capabilities be assessed in a consistent manner?

With reference to Section 2, the agility capability of a supply chain is measured by itsreactivity to changes. Some agility metrics can be found in the literature (Van Hoek et al.,2001; Slack, 2005; Okongwu et al., 2008; Kekre et al., 1995; Narasimhan and Das, 1999;Sethi and Sethi, 1990; Kisperska-Moron and Swierczek, 2009). Unfortunately, most of

IJPDLM40,8/9

732

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

the metrics listed are not relevant for humanitarians since they usually deal with theproduction of goods. We have thus refined the tables such as to list only agilityindicators that are relevant for both sectors, hence dropping the metrics that are used toassess manufacturing agility (Figure 4).

From these metrics, an assessment of the agility capabilities of the supply chain hasto be deduced. For this specific purpose, we used a symbolic modeling approach. Theidea is to use the above metrics to measure each capability. They will enable to qualifythe supply chain to a given level for each capability, using evaluation grids such as theone shown in Figure 5. As we can see in figure, supply chain agility metrics are linked byequations in order to enable a consistent assessment of each capability. Supply chainagility can then be deduced from the previous scores on the basis of the model shown inFigure 6. The method used to build these equations is similar to the one used to build theCMMIw maturity model: brainstorming and validation by practitioners. To conduct anoverall assessment of supply chain agility, each capability (flexibility, responsivenessand effectiveness) has to be evaluated through its evaluation grid. Special care has beentaken to keep it as robust and reproducible as possible.

To illustrate how to use the model, we conducted an assessment of the agility ofIFRC’s relief chain during its response to the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. The detailedscores of the responsiveness of IFRC’s supply chain correspond to the darker cells inFigure 5. The overall assessment is summarized in the radar graph, as shown in Figure 7.On the 0-3 scale for the capability levels, we can see that IFRC scored 3 on velocity, 2 onreactivity and 1 on visibility. Indonesia being used to natural disasters, its NationalSociety has developed contingency plans and the local delegation fosters a RegionalDisaster Response Team, a trained team of experts with pre-prepared field equipment,including computers and telecommunications. These teams are deployed from theregion and are, therefore more likely to point out local specificities and adequatelyevaluate the needs of beneficiaries. They helped increase reactivity. IFRC has alsodeveloped units to respond to specific needs, for example, IT and telecommunications,and referral hospital or logistics. Dispatching these units definitively contributed toincreasing velocity and reactivity levels. Consequently, IFRC’s velocity and reactivitylevels are quite high. Regarding visibility, IFRC scored only 1 for this specific operation.Actually, following their decentralization process, they had a system in place to track thelocation and status of goods at the regional level. Since it was their first operation withsuch an organization, the information flow was not optimal. During the first days of theoperation, there was no tracking system in place. They had parallel pipelines, whichhindered visibility and reporting lines were not clearly defined.

3.4 Proceeding method of our model for assessing supply chain agilityThe aim of the evaluation grid shown in Figure 5 is to assess the responsiveness ofsupply chains. Other similar tables have been built to assess the overall agility level. Tomake the best out of it, it should not be used without a method that should provideorganizations with instructions on how to use it, as well as improvement paths thatwould enable to achieve higher levels in the grid. The assessment of supply chain agilitystarts with the preparation phase, where the person in charge of the audit selects theparticipants to be interviewed, selects and prepares the assessment team and developsthe assessment plan. The second phase consists in conducting the assessment. To dothis, interviews, records and documentation are used to gather relevant information and

The agilityof supply chains

733

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Figure 5.Utilization of the metricsto assess capabilities –supply chainresponsivenessevaluation grid Velocity, 5 metrics——— ——— Velocity Reactivity Visibility Responsiveness

Perc

enta

ge o

f w

ork

forc

e in

sel

fdi

rect

ed te

ams

Num

ber

of o

rgan

izat

iona

l lev

els

Aut

hori

ty le

vel a

t whi

ch r

isks

can

be ta

ken

and

deci

sion

s ar

e m

ade

Pres

ence

/exh

aust

iven

ess

ofco

ntin

genc

y pl

ans

Num

ber

of e

mer

genc

y re

spon

sete

ams

Ass

essm

ent o

f su

pply

chai

n ve

loci

ty

Ove

rall

asse

ssm

ent o

f su

pply

chai

n ve

loci

ty, f

rom

pre

viou

s ta

ble

Freq

uenc

y of

inte

rmed

iate

and

end

user

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t

Ava

ilabi

lity

and

diff

usio

n of

info

rmat

ion

on e

ntiti

es tr

ansi

ting

the

supp

ly c

hain

Ove

rall

asse

ssm

ent o

f su

pply

cha

inre

spon

sive

ness

Not

e: G

rey

cells

indi

cate

IFR

C le

vel f

or th

e re

spon

se to

the

2006

Yog

yaka

rta

eart

hqua

ke

Scor

e =

0

Les

s th

an 2

0% o

f w

orke

rs a

re o

rgan

ized

inte

ams

Mor

e th

an 6

org

aniz

atio

nal l

evel

s

No

auth

ority

at f

ield

leve

l

No

cont

inge

ncy

plan

exi

sts

No

emer

genc

y te

ams

ΣSc

ores

of a

bove

met

rics

< 5

Scor

e =

0

Wor

kers

are

indi

vidu

als,

hav

ing

no a

utho

rity

to ta

ke r

isks

Nei

ther

inte

rmed

iate

nor

end

use

nee

ds a

reas

sess

ed

No

syst

emat

ic c

aptu

re o

f in

form

atio

n

Scor

es o

fV

eloc

ity

Rea

ctiv

ity

Vis

ibil

ity

Supp

ly c

hain

is n

ot a

ble

to r

espo

nd to

cha

nge

with

in a

n ap

prop

riat

e tim

e fr

ame

Σ<

3

Sc

ore

= 1

Bet

wee

n 20

% a

nd 6

0% o

f w

orke

rs a

reor

gani

zed

in te

ams

5 or

6 o

rgan

izat

iona

l lev

els

Fiel

d w

orke

rs h

ave

to w

ait f

or th

e pe

rson

in c

harg

e of

them

to a

ppro

ve b

efor

e ac

ting

Pres

ence

of

a co

ntin

genc

y pl

an, b

ut r

ough

Som

e em

erge

ncy

team

s, b

ut ju

st e

noug

h to

cope

with

less

than

50%

of

unce

rtai

ntie

s

5≤Σ

Scor

esof

abo

vem

etri

cs<

10

Scor

e =

1

Atle

ast 2

0% o

f w

orke

rs o

pera

te in

sel

fdi

rect

ed te

ams

havi

ng m

anda

te to

dea

l with

smal

l siz

e ri

sks

Inte

rmed

iate

use

r’s

need

are

ass

esse

d on

aye

arly

bas

is. N

o as

sess

men

t of

end

user

need

s

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t peo

ple

and

prod

ucts

isca

ptur

ed, b

ut n

ot c

ircu

late

d

Supp

ly c

hain

is a

ble

to r

espo

nd to

som

ech

ange

s bu

t not

with

in a

n ac

cept

able

time

fram

e

Scor

es o

fV

eloc

ity

Rea

ctiv

ity

Vis

ibil

ity

Σ≥

3

Sc

ore

= 3

Mor

e th

an 8

0% o

f w

orke

rs a

re o

rgan

ized

in te

ams

Les

s th

an 3

org

aniz

atio

nal l

evel

s

Wor

ker

can

act i

f ne

cess

ity is

ther

e

Pres

ence

of

an e

xhau

stiv

e co

ntin

genc

ypl

an

Eno

ugh

emer

genc

y te

ams

to c

ope

with

unce

rtai

ntie

s

ΣSc

ores

of a

bove

met

rics

≥ 14

Scor

e =

3

Supp

ly c

hain

man

agem

ent i

s re

spon

sibi

lity

of te

ams

Eva

luat

ion

and

asse

ssm

ent o

f al

l use

rne

eds

is d

one

on a

wee

kly

or d

aily

bas

is

Supp

ly c

hain

is s

truc

ture

d ar

ound

info

rmat

ion

flow

Vel

ocit

y le

vel =

3R

eact

ivit

y le

vel =

3V

isib

ilit

y le

vel≥

2

Supp

ly c

hain

is a

ble

to r

espo

nd to

any

chan

ge w

ithin

an

appr

opri

ate

time

fram

e

Scor

e =

2

Bet

wee

n 60

and

80

perc

ent o

f w

orke

rs a

reor

gani

zed

in te

ams

3 or

4 o

rgan

izat

iona

l lev

els

Sign

ican

t cha

nges

nee

d ap

prov

al f

rom

hier

arch

y

Pres

ence

of

a co

ntin

genc

y pl

an, b

ut n

otsu

ffic

ient

ly d

etai

led

Som

e em

erge

ncy

team

s, b

ut ju

st e

noug

h to

cope

with

50

to 9

0% u

ncer

tain

ties

10 ≤

ΣSc

ores

of a

bove

met

rics

< 1

4

Scor

e =

2

Atle

ast 6

0% o

f w

orke

rs o

pera

te in

sel

fdi

rect

ed te

ams

havi

ng m

anda

te to

dea

l with

med

ium

siz

e ri

sks

Inte

rmed

iate

use

r’s

need

are

ass

esse

d on

am

onth

ly b

asis

. End

use

r ne

eds

atle

ast o

nce

a ye

ar

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t peo

ple

and

prod

ucts

isca

ptur

ed, b

ut o

nly

part

ially

cir

cula

ted

Vel

ocit

y le

vel ≥

2R

eact

ivit

y le

vel ≥

2V

isib

ilit

y le

vel≥

1

Supp

ly c

hain

is a

ble

to r

espo

nd to

mos

tch

ange

s, u

sual

ly w

ithin

an

acce

ptab

letim

e fr

ame

IJPDLM40,8/9

734

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

generate results. Once the results are validated, the final report can be delivered anddocumented. The final step consists then in developing the improvement plan, with theaim of achieving the desired levels for all capabilities.

To design the improvement plan, two options are open to the organization. Either itfocuses on the capabilities with the lowest score or it focuses on sets of pre-definedcapabilities depending on its current and desired agility level. The first option enables anorganization to implement process improvement in different process areas at differentrates. The capabilities that the organization want to focus on are evaluatedindependently using their specific evaluation grid, for example, Figure 5 for theassessment of responsiveness. The second option is shown in Figure 6. To use it, eachcapability has to be assessed with its evaluation grid. The results are then aggregated toqualify the supply chain to a given level of agility. There are five levels of overall agility(ad hoc, repeatable, defined, managed and optimized) and four levels for each capabilitythat can be assessed thanks to the metrics defined in the previous section. A roughcorrespondence between agility maturity and capability levels is shown in Figure 6. Theimprovement path may be either increasing a given capability (depending on theorganization’s strategy) or increasing the overall agility level by targeting a given profile.

Figure 7.Summarized results for

IFRC supply chain inYogyakarta in 2006

Key improvementarea

Capability level

Volume flexibility XDelivery flexibility XMix flexibility XProduct flexibility XReactivity XVelocity XReliability XCompleteness XVisibility X

Flexibility

Effectiveness

Visibility Reactivity

Velocity

0

1

2

3

IFRCresultsAgilitymaturity 1

Agilitymaturity 2

Agilitymaturity 3

Agilitymaturity 4

Agilitymaturity 5

0 1 2 3

Figure 6.Proceeding method and

evaluation grid for supplychain agility

Agility level 5Flexibility = 3 Reactivity = 3Velocity = 3

Effectiveness = 3Visibility ≥ 2

Agility level 4Flexibility ≥ 2Reactivity ≥ 2

Velocity ≥ 2Effectiveness ≥ 2

Visibility ≥ 1

Agility level 3Flexibility ≥ 2Reactivity ≥ 1

Velocity ≥ 1

Agility level 2Flexibility ≥ 1

Agility level 1Flexibility <1

Key improvementarea

Capability level

Volume flexibilityDelivery flexibilityMix flexibilityProduct flexibilityReactivityVelocityReliabilityCompletenessVisibility

0 1 2 3

Agilitymaturity1

Agilitymaturity 2 Agility

maturity 3

Agilitymaturity 5

Agilitymaturity 4

The agilityof supply chains

735

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

For example, an organization that has achieved a capability level of 2 on all dimensions(flexibility, reactivity and velocity) may want to increase its agility level by working onits reliability and completeness.

Let us now go back to our previous application – the IFRC solution to the 2006Yogyakarta earthquake. Figure 7 shows the summarized results of this example.

As we can see in the figure, IFRC achieved capability levels of 2 for flexibility,reactivity and reliability, 3 for velocity and completeness and 1 for visibility.Consequently, its agility level is ranked 4 (managed) for this relief operation. A realisticimprovement plan should first be discussed with the IFRC management team in orderto validate the desired level. One recommendation that ensues from these results couldbe to start by improving the flexibility of the supply chain before improving reliabilityand finally visibility.

This is the first application of our model. Further research is underway to use this toolin other situations. In the case of project-oriented supply chains, as is the case for thehumanitarian and some industrial sectors, the study can be carried out in two ways:

(1) For a single organization, assess the agility of the supply chain in multipleprojects in order to evaluate the consistency, evolution, min, max and averagelevel of their supply chain agility.

(2) For a given type of project, assess the agility of the supply chain of variousorganizations. For example, how well did various organizations perform duringthe 2009 hurricane season in the Caribbean?

Such a study will enable to identify best practices and gaps, first steps towardself-improvement and opportunities for the transfer of best practices.

4. Conclusion and perspectivesAs we have shown is this paper, humanitarians have developed tools and methods toquickly respond to changes. Yet, especially in the humanitarian context, it is hard, if notimpossible, to extensively develop some of the agility capabilities enumerated in Section 2.Total visibility, for example, is not easily achievable by humanitarians, for not only thereis usually no single entity responsible for the whole supply chain, but also there are fewsystems in place to share information between all the actors of the end-to-end supply chain.On the other side, given the highly competitive and uncertain business environments inwhich they operate, commercial supply chains constantly search for new ways ofdeveloping their agility capabilities in order to improve their competitiveness andprofitability. Thus, supply chain agility is a strategically important capability in manysectors, including the humanitarian.

The contributions of this paper are twofold. First, it provides a framework(represented in the form of a house of supply chain agility) that enables to understand thenotion of supply chain agility. Second, it develops a model for assessing the agility of asupply chain. The expertise of humanitarians in the field of supply chain agility is usedto suggest some systematic methods used to achieve a high level of agility. We alsopropose some metrics and a proceeding method that can be used to evaluate supplychain agility. All this will constitute a basis for future field research, with the aim ofidentifying and transferring best practices in supply chain agility. Further work tofinalize the maturity model is in progress. This will be followed by field applications forvarious humanitarian relief operations as well as for some commercial supply chains.

IJPDLM40,8/9

736

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

References

Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,pp. 388-96.

Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal ofLogistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Supply chain migration from lean and functional toagile and customised”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4,pp. 206-13.

De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (2005), “Definitions and linkages between operational and strategicflexibilities”, Omega, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 525-40.

Giachetti, R.E., Martinez, L.D., Saenz, O.A. and Chen, C.-S. (2003), “Analysis of the structuralmeasures of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000), “Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the HolyGrail?”, Omega, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 373-84.

Huan, S.H., Sheoran, S.K. and Wang, G. (2004), “A review and analysis of supply chainoperations reference (SCOR) model”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 23-9.

Kekre, S., Murthi, B.P.S. and Srinivasan, K. (1995), “Operating decisions, supplier availability andquality: an empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4,pp. 387-96.

Kidd, P. (1995), “Agile manufacturing: a strategy for the 21st century”, IEE Colloquium on AgileManufacturing, Coventry, pp. 1-6.

Kisperska-Moron, D. and Swierczek, A. (2009), “The agile capabilities of polish companies in thesupply chain: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118No. 1, pp. 217-24.

Kleindorfer, P.R. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2004), “Managing risk in the global supply chain”,in Gatignon, H. and Kimberley, J.R. (Eds), The INSEAD-Wharton Alliance on Globalizing:Strategies for Building Successful Global Businesses, Cambridge University Press, London,pp. 288-331.

Lambert, D.M., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J. and Croxton, K.L. (2005), “An evaluation ofprocess-oriented supply chain management frameworks”, Journal of Business Logistics,Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-51.

Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple – a supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10,pp. 102-12.

Lin, C., Chiu, H. and Chu, P. (2006), “Agility index in the supply chain”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 285-99.

Loch, C.H., DeMeyer, A. and Pich, M.T. (2006), Managing the Unknown: A New Approach toManaging High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

McCullen, P., Saw, R., Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2006), “The F1 supply chain: adaptingthe car to the circuit – the supply chain to the market”, Supply Chain Forum:An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-23.

Narasimhan, R. and Das, A. (1999), “An empirical investigation of the contribution of strategicsourcing to manufacturing flexibilities and performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 683-718.

The agilityof supply chains

737

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Okongwu, U., Lauras, M., Humez, V. and Dupont, L. (2008), “Trade-offs in order management:a multi-criteria advanced ATP approach”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAcademy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

Oloruntoba, R. and Gray, R. (2006), “Humanitarian aid: an agile supply chain?”, Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 115-20.

Panneerselvam, R. (2004), Research Methodology, PHI Learning, New Delhi.

Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”, International Journalof Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 289-328.

Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. (1999), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturingorganisations: an introduction”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62Nos 1/2, pp. 7-22.

Sheffi, Y. (2004), “Demand variability and supply chain flexibility”, in Prockl, G. (Ed.),Contributions in Logistics, University of Nurnberg, Nurnberg.

Slack, N. (2005), “The flexibility of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1190-200.

Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. (2007), “Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition andreview”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27,pp. 685-713.

Supply Chain Council (2006), Supply Chain Operations Reference Model 8.0, Supply ChainCouncil, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.supply-chain.org/resources/scor/8.0

Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), “The antecedents of supply chain agility of afirm: scale development and model testing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 170-88.

Tomasini, R.M. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), Managing Information in HumanitarianCrises: the UNJLC Website, INSEAD Case Study No. 5278.

Tomasini, R.M. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2009), Humanitarian Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan,New York, NY.

Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in thesupply chain”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21No. 1, pp. 126-47.

Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2006), “Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in highgear”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp. 475-89.

Vernon, F. (2008), “Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 180-4.

Weber, M.M. (2002), “Measuring supply chain agility in the virtual organization”, InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 577-90.

World Economic Forum (2008), Global Risks 2008: A Global Risk Network Report, WorldEconomic Forum, Geneva, available at: www.weforum.org/pdf/globalrisk/report2008.pdf

Yin, R.K. (2002), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: the drivers,concepts and attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2,pp. 33-43.

Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J. (2003), “Manufacturing flexibility: defining andanalyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction”, Journalof Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 173-91.

IJPDLM40,8/9

738

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Further reading

Bennett, R. and Daniel, M. (2002), “Media reporting of Third World disasters: the journalist’sperspective”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 33-42.

Byman, D. (2000), Strengthening the Partnership: Improving Military Coordination with ReliefAgencies and Allies in Humanitarian Operations, Rand Corporation, Washington, DC.

Ebersole, J.M. (1995), “Mohonk criteria for humanitarian assistance in complex emergences”,Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 14-24.

Munslow, B. (1999), “Complex emergencies: the institutional impasse”, Third World Quarterly,Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 207-21.

Oloruntoba, R. and Gray, R. (2002), “Logistics for humanitarian aid: a survey of aidorganizations”, in Griffiths, J., Hewitt, F. and Ireland, P. (Eds), Proceedings of the LogisticsResearch Network 7th Annual Conference, Birmingham, pp. 217-22.

Stewart, F. (1998), “Food aid during conflicts: can one reconcile its humanitarian, economic andpolitical economy effect?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 560-5.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

About the authorsAurelie Charles is a PhD student since 2007. Her research focus in on supply chain agility, and onthe design of supply chains under high level of uncertainties regarding demand, supply andenvironment. She also has an industrial engineering background and worked in the chemicalindustry before joining both INSEAD as Visiting Researcher and the Universite de Toulouse –Mines Albi as a PhD student. Aurelie Charles is the corresponding author and can be contactedat: aurelie.charles@mines-albi.fr

Matthieu Lauras was Supply Chain Project Manager in a pharmaceutical company from 2001to 2005. After this experience, he joined the Industrial Engineering Department of the UniversiteToulouse – Mines Albi, as an Associate Professor and the Toulouse Business School as anAffiliate Professor. His works mostly focus on supply chain management and performancemanagement for project and business process. All his researches concern as well the industrialsector as the humanitarian sector. He has published several papers in journals and internationalconferences in the area of performance assessment and supply chain management.

Luk Van Wassenhove holds the Henry Ford Chair in Manufacturing at INSEAD whileserving as the Academic Director of INSEAD’s Social Innovation Centre. His research focus is onclosed-loop supply chains and disaster management, producing several award-winning casestudied and articles on both subjects. He regularly consults for international organizations in theprofit as well as not-for-profit sectors.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The agilityof supply chains

739

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Appendix

Cap

abil

ity

Wh

yH

owC

orre

spon

din

gm

eth

ods

fou

nd

inli

tera

ture

Vol

um

efl

exib

ilit

yT

he

amou

nt

ofre

lief

item

s/p

eop

lese

nt

inth

efi

eld

dep

end

son

don

atio

ns,

ofte

nu

nfo

rese

eab

le.

Ital

sod

epen

ds

onn

eed

s,w

hic

har

eon

lyk

now

naf

ter

the

cris

isan

das

sess

edin

par

alle

lw

ith

the

sett

ing

up

ofth

esu

pp

lych

ain

Cre

atio

nof

the

dis

aste

rre

spon

seem

erg

ency

fun

dan

dot

her

bu

ffer

fun

ds

allo

win

gto

star

tre

spon

din

gb

efor

ere

ceiv

ing

don

atio

ns

Pre

-tra

inin

gof

team

sof

exp

erts

sen

tto

fiel

dw

ith

in24

hou

rto

asse

ssn

eed

sP

rese

nce

ofre

gio

nal

stoc

ks,

wit

hca

pac

ity

top

rov

ide

reli

efit

ems

wit

hin

48h

our

to40

,000

fam

ilie

sin

tota

l(s

tock

cap

acit

yis

adju

sted

per

reg

ion

)

Org

aniz

ew

ork

forc

ein

self

-dir

ecte

dte

ams

(Van

Hoe

ket

al.,

2001

)A

dju

stw

orld

wid

est

orag

eca

pac

ity

(Sw

affo

rdet

al.,

2006

)

Del

iver

yfl

exib

ilit

yL

ittl

eor

no

vis

ibil

ity

ond

eliv

ery

pla

nn

ing

,d

epen

din

gon

the

arri

val

ofu

nso

lici

ted

ink

ind

don

atio

ns,

etc.

Dev

elop

men

tof

clea

rsy

stem

san

dp

roce

du

res,

job

des

crip

tion

s,et

c.C

reat

ion

ofta

ilor

-mad

eso

ftw

are

enab

lin

gp

ipel

ine

tim

ere

du

ctio

nan

dp

ipel

ine

rep

orts

edit

ion

sA

sses

smen

tof

alla

vai

lab

led

eliv

ery

mod

esm

ade

by

log

isti

cian

team

inth

efi

eld

Alt

erd

eliv

ery

sch

edu

les

tom

eet

chan

gin

gcu

stom

erre

qu

irem

ents

(Sw

affo

rdet

al.,

2006

)C

han

ge

del

iver

ym

odes

wh

enn

eces

sary

(Sw

affo

rdet

al.,

2006

)

Mix

flex

ibil

ity

Dep

end

ing

onth

eaf

fect

edar

eaan

dth

en

atu

reof

the

cris

is,

man

yd

iffe

ren

tp

rod

uct

sh

ave

tob

eh

and

led

Sta

nd

ard

izat

ion

ofas

man

yem

erg

ency

item

sas

pos

sib

le:

emer

gen

cyit

emca

talo

gw

ith

spec

ifica

tion

san

dre

fere

nce

sof

all

item

s,th

atm

igh

tb

eof

use

(aro

un

d7,

000

ref.

for

the

IFR

C)

Cre

atio

nof

tail

or-m

ade

soft

war

een

abli

ng

the

edit

ion

ofm

obil

izat

ion

tab

les,

etc.

for

ever

ycr

isis

Incr

ease

lev

elof

cust

omiz

atio

n(S

waf

ford

etal.,

2006

)P

rom

ote

flow

ofin

form

atio

nw

ith

sup

pli

ers

and

cust

omer

s(L

ee,

2004

;L

inet

al.,

2006

)

Pro

du

ctfl

exib

ilit

yIn

kin

dd

onat

ion

sm

ayn

otco

rres

pon

dex

actl

yto

the

spec

ifica

tion

s.N

ewn

eed

sm

ayar

ise,

that

req

uir

esp

ecifi

cit

ems

tob

ed

eliv

ered

Con

tin

uou

sw

ork

onan

emer

gen

cyit

emca

talo

gto

mak

esu

resp

ecifi

cati

ons

and

refe

ren

ces

ofal

lit

ems

are

kn

own

inad

van

cean

du

pto

dat

eE

xp

erts

trai

ned

atas

sess

ing

the

qu

alit

yof

pro

du

cts

rece

ived

by

sup

pli

ers

Fas

tin

trod

uct

ion

ofn

ewp

rod

uct

s(L

inet

al.,

2006

)

(continued

)

Table AI.Capabilities of IFRC’ssupply chain, enablingthem to develop theiragility

IJPDLM40,8/9

740

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Cap

abil

ity

Wh

yH

owC

orre

spon

din

gm

eth

ods

fou

nd

inli

tera

ture

Rea

ctiv

ity

Nee

ds

ofb

enefi

ciar

ies

evol

ve

con

stan

tly

Ex

per

tsin

nee

did

enti

fica

tion

and

eval

uat

ion

are

pre

sen

tin

man

yre

gio

ns

Pre

-tra

ined

team

sin

fiel

das

sess

men

tar

ere

ady

tod

eplo

yin

case

ofem

erg

ency

Org

aniz

ew

ork

forc

ein

self

-dir

ecte

dte

ams

(Van

Hoe

ket

al.,

2001

)D

raw

up

con

tin

gen

cyp

lan

san

dd

evel

opcr

isis

man

agem

ent

team

s(L

ee,

2004

)V

irtu

alin

teg

rati

on(i

nst

anta

neo

us

dem

and

cap

ture

,in

terp

reta

tion

and

resp

onse

)(V

anH

oeket

al.,

2001

)F

acil

itat

era

pid

dec

isio

nm

akin

g(L

inet

al.,

2006

)V

eloc

ity

Man

yto

ols

and

met

hod

sh

ave

bee

nd

evel

oped

toac

cele

rate

the

sett

ing

up

ofth

esu

pp

lych

ain

and

allo

wit

toev

olv

ew

ith

nee

ds

Pre

-pos

itio

nin

gof

emer

gen

cyre

lief

item

sF

ram

ewor

kag

reem

ents

wit

hsu

pp

lier

sD

evel

opm

ent

ofto

ols

enab

lin

gfa

ster

resp

onse

inth

efi

eld

(mob

ile

war

ehou

ses,

team

sof

pre

-tra

ined

exp

erts

wit

hth

eir

spec

ific

mat

eria

ls(l

ogis

tics

,w

ater

and

san

itat

ion

,te

leco

ms,

etc.

))

Ad

just

wor

ldw

ide

stor

age

cap

acit

y(S

waf

ford

etal.,

2006

)H

ave

ad

epen

dab

lelo

gis

tics

syst

emor

par

tner

(Lee

,20

04)

Dev

elop

coll

abor

ativ

ere

lati

onsh

ips

wit

hsu

pp

lier

(Lee

,20

04;

Lin

etal.,

2006

)O

rgan

ize

wor

kfo

rce

inse

lf-d

irec

ted

team

s(V

anH

oeket

al.,

2001

)F

acil

itat

era

pid

dec

isio

nm

akin

g(L

inet

al.,

2006

)V

isib

ilit

yT

he

com

ple

xit

yof

the

env

iron

men

tm

akes

itre

ally

dif

ficu

ltto

hav

ea

clea

rv

isio

nof

wh

atst

akeh

old

ers

are

doi

ng

Cre

atio

nof

ata

ilor

mad

eso

ftw

are

enab

lin

ga

bet

ter

mon

itor

ing

ofth

ere

spon

se(H

LS

/H

EL

IOS

),a

soft

war

eto

man

age

stoc

ks

(LO

GIC

),so

me

bal

ance

dsc

orec

ard

s,et

c.

Info

rmat

ion

acce

ssib

lesu

pp

lych

ain

wid

e(L

inet

al.,

2006

)

Rel

iab

ilit

yD

eliv

erin

gth

ead

equ

ate

aid

may

be

aq

ues

tion

ofli

feor

dea

thfo

rth

eb

enefi

ciar

ies

Use

ofan

emer

gen

cyit

emca

talo

gto

mak

esu

resp

ecifi

cati

ons

and

refe

ren

ces

ofal

lit

ems

are

kn

own

and

val

idat

edb

yp

oten

tial

ben

efici

arie

sP

rod

uct

san

dk

its

are

mod

ified

dep

end

ing

onth

ear

eas.

(win

ter

ten

tsor

just

mos

qu

ito

net

sfo

rsh

elte

r;m

edic

ines

and

clot

hes

inag

reem

ent

wit

hlo

cal

cust

oms

and

law

s,et

c.)

Cu

stom

erse

nsi

tiv

ity

(cu

stom

erce

nte

red

log

isti

cp

olic

y)

(Van

Hoe

ket

al.,

2001

)D

esig

nfo

rp

ostp

onem

ent

(Lee

,20

04)

Com

ple

ten

ess

Bas

icn

eed

sn

otfu

lfill

edm

ayre

sult

ind

eath

sK

eep

trac

kof

nu

mb

erof

fam

ilie

sb

ein

gas

sist

edM

easu

rem

ent

(Van

Hoe

ket

al.,

2001

)

Table AI.

The agilityof supply chains

741

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran. 2014. Agile manufacturing: framework and its empiricalvalidation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [CrossRef]

2. Frederick Benaben, Wenxin Mu, Nicolas Boissel-Dallier, Anne-Marie Barthe-Delanoe, Sarah Zribi, HervePingaud. 2014. Supporting interoperability of collaborative networks through engineering of a service-based Mediation Information System (MISE 2.0). Enterprise Information Systems 1-27. [CrossRef]

3. Aristides Matopoulos, Gyöngyi Kovács, Odran Hayes. 2014. Local Resources and Procurement Practices inHumanitarian Supply Chains: An Empirical Examination of Large-Scale House Reconstruction Projects.Decision Sciences 45:10.1111/deci.2014.45.issue-4, 621-646. [CrossRef]

4. Graham Heaslip, Elizabeth Barber. 2014. Using the military in disaster relief: systemising challenges andopportunities. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 4:1, 60-81. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

5. Adriana Leiras, Irineu de Brito Jr, Eduardo Queiroz Peres, Tábata Rejane Bertazzo, Hugo TsugunobuYoshida Yoshizaki. 2014. Literature review of humanitarian logistics research: trends and challenges.Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 4:1, 95-130. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

6. Nathalie Merminod, Jean Nollet, Gilles Pache. 2014. Streamlining humanitarian and peacekeeping supplychains. Society and Business Review 9:1, 4-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Matthieu Lauras, Frédérick Benaben, Sébastien Truptil, Aurélie Charles. 2013. Event-cloud platform tosupport decision-making in emergency management. Information Systems Frontiers . [CrossRef]

8. Shuva Gautam, Luc LeBel, Daniel Beaudoin. 2013. Agility capabilities in wood procurement systems: aliterature synthesis. International Journal of Forest Engineering 24:3, 216-232. [CrossRef]

9. Andreas Wieland. 2013. Selecting the right supply chain based on risks. Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management 24:5, 652-668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Graham Heaslip. 2013. Services operations management and humanitarian logistics. Journal ofHumanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 3:1, 37-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Constantin Blome, Tobias Schoenherr, Daniel Rexhausen. 2013. Antecedents and enablers of supply chainagility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. International Journal of ProductionResearch 51:4, 1295-1318. [CrossRef]

12. Ben Ruben R., Prasanth A. S., Ramesh R., Narendran S. A. P.. 2013. Implementation Study on ApplyingAgile Supply Chain Paradigm in the Manufacturing of a Conventional Automobile Horn in an IndianCompany. International Journal of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing 97-101. [CrossRef]

13. Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks. International Journal ofPhysical Distribution & Logistics Management 42:10, 887-905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [SupplementalMaterial]

14. Robert Eadie, Srinath Perera, George Heaney. 2012. Capturing maturity of ICT applications inconstruction processes. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 17:2, 176-194.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. Alessandra Cozzolino, Silvia Rossi, Alessio Conforti. 2012. Agile and lean principles in the humanitariansupply chain. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 2:1, 16-33. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

16. Jamison M. Day, Steven A. Melnyk, Paul D. Larson, Edward W. Davis, D. Clay Whybark. 2012.Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Supply Chains: A Matter of Life and Death. Journal of Supply ChainManagement 48:2, 21-36. [CrossRef]

17. Mauro Falasca, Christopher W. Zobel. 2011. A two‐stage procurement model for humanitarian reliefsupply chains. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 1:2, 151-169. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y T

HO

NB

UR

I A

t 13:

42 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)