A model for inbound supply risk analysis

Wu, Teresa; Blackhurst, Jennifer; Chidambaram, Vellayappan

doi:10.1016/j.compind.2005.11.001

Cited by 330 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a growing literature on adopting the MCDA methods and their fuzzy extensions in SCRM in general because of the multiple factor nature of supply chain risks (Gaudenzi and Borghesi 2006;Wu et al 2006;Xia and Chen 2011;Wang et al 2012b;Chen and Wu 2013). Different combinations of MCDA methods have also been used in various frameworks and decision models (Wang andDurugbo 2013, Samedi et al 2013;Wang 2015).…”

Section: Adoption Of Mcda Methods In Scrmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating supply chain risks and mitigation strategies: a comprehensive framework

Wang

Tiwari

Chen

2017

Production Planning & Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Concerning the increasing emphasis on risk management in this uncertain global environment, there is an urgent demand for practical decision support tools that support supply chain risk communication and management. This research proposes an integrated framework that takes explicit account of multiple types of risk in aiding decision-making, and compares and ranks alternative risk mitigation strategies individually and collectively in indicator basis using fuzzy set theory and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods. Through an illustrative case, the research demonstrates that the proposed framework provides a holistic view of supply chain risks and enables firms to foresee, spot and respond to the exposed risks in an effective and efficient manner.

show abstract

Section: Adoption Of Mcda Methods In Scrmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating supply chain risks and mitigation strategies: a comprehensive framework

Wang

Tiwari

Chen

2017

Production Planning & Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ojala and Hallikas (2006) analyzed supplier investment risks, and how each could be managed. Wu et al (2006) classified a broader set of supply chain risks as internal and external, as well as by the level of controllability. Li (2007) modeled supplier risk attitude with respect to risk aversion.…”

Section: Supply Chain Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection

Olson

2008

International Journal of Production Economics

280

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Zsidisin et al (2005) defines supply risk as the probability of an incident associated with inbound supply from individual supplier failures or the supply market occurring, in which its outcomes result in the inability of the purchasing firm to meet customer demand or cause threats to customer life and safety. Wu et al (2006) states that inbound supply risk is defined as the potential occurrence of an incident associated with inbound supply from individual supplier failures or the supply market, resulting in the inability of the purchasing firm to meet customer demand and as involving the potential occurrence of events associated with inbound supply that can have significant detrimental effects on the purchasing firm. Finally, Nagurney et al (2005) defines demand side risk as represented by the uncertainty surrounding the random demands which often occur at the retailer stage of the supply chain.…”

Section: Supply Chain Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of operational risks are quality, delivery and service problems. Network risk is defined as risk resulting from the structure of the supplier network such as ownership, individual strategies of the suppliers, and the supplier's supply network agreements (Wu et al 2006). External risks are defined as events driven by external forces such as weather, earthquakes, political, regulatory and market forces (Wagner and Bode 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%