Supply chain disruptions: flexibility measures when encountering capacity problems in a port conflict

Abstract

PurposeThere can be many negative effects from a disruption in a central node of companies' supply chains, such as a port conflict that reduces capacity. Strategies for disruption management include flexibility and redundancy. This paper aims to analyse a supply chain disruption from flexibility and capacity perspectives.Design/methodology/approachA case study was conducted of the supply chain disruption caused by the port conflict in 2016–2017 in Gothenburg, in which the port operated at a reduced capacity. Companies importing and exporting goods, freight forwarders, hauliers, train operators, ports, shipping companies and their agents were interviewed.FindingsVarious capacity problems (ports, links, container chassis, empty containers) were encountered due to the port conflict. Flexibility measures such as node, mode and fleet flexibility can be used in response to changes in capacity. Difficulties with applying flexibility are discussed.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough based on a Swedish case, findings are relevant for disruptions or other types of disturbances in ports elsewhere and also in other important nodes in companies' supply chains.Practical implicationsActors influenced by disturbances in a port can increase their understanding of potential capacity problems and flexibility measures. Readiness and timely action are important due to competition regarding capacity.Originality/valueThe implications on the transport network surrounding a port, including many actors, are explained, illustrating how capacity problems propagate, but there is some flexibility to manage the problems.

Comparing flexibility-based measures during different disruptions: evidence from maritime supply chains

“…(2006) have introduced nine internal and five external dimensions of flexibility in freight transport that they subsequently applied to the ocean carrier industry during a global economic crisis and collapse in demand (Mason and Nair, 2013a, b). More recently, Rogerson et al . (2022) applied those transport flexibility-based measures in a similar context but refined the list by referring to logistics flexibility-based measures listed by Jafari (2015).…”

“…Although the literature addresses flexibility in manufacturing, logistics and supply chains in general, how flexibility resonates in service supply chains, including transport chains, has yet to be explored. Recently, Rogerson et al (2022) studied the impacts of a disruption in terms of flexibility and capacity during a port conflict in a maritime supply chain. By extension, this Flexibilitybased measures during disruptions…”

“…For example, amid reduced capacity in Gothenburg, containers were transshipped in other main ports using feeder services to smaller ports or truck, rail and ferry combinations to reach Sweden. More recently, Rogerson et al (2022) have analysed problems with capacity related to the port conflict and the flexibility-based countermeasures applied. Ultimately, an agreement between both labour unions and the employer organisation was signed in 2019, and the current situation at the port is reasonably calm.…”

“…The intensity of man-made events may also fluctuate due to decision-making, as witnessed in a port conflict (Rogerson et al ., 2022) and the recent disruption of grain supplies from Ukraine. In the aftermath of such events, links and nodes in a supply chain might operate on an on-and-off basis.…”

“…(2006) and take a general perspective on transportation. However, the ones used by Mason and Nair (2013a, 2013b) and Rogerson et al . (2022) were adapted to the shipping context examined in their respective studies.…”