Title:

Does location matter?

Supply chain disruptions in sparse transportation networks

Author: Jan Husdal

Møreforsking Molde AS
Britv 4, 6411 Molde, Norway
Tel: +47 71214289 / +47 91248023
Email: jan.husdal@himolde.no
Web: www.mfm.no

Submission date: 1 August 2008

Revision date: 21 October 2008
Word count: 5637, incl. abstract and excl. 6 figures
 Jan Husdal 2

ABSTRACT
Disruptions of the supply chain are of particular interest in countries or regions with sparse
transportation networks. Here, the supply chain can not be structured freely, but is limited by
constraints, and with only a few transportation modes and links available between communities, they
become extremely vulnerable, since in a worst-case scenario no suitable alternative exists for
deliveries to or from communities. Thus, the structure or design of the supply chain, along with the
organization and preparedness become important factors in determining if a company has a favorable
or an unfavorable location.
The question then arises, are businesses located in regions with sparse transportation networks
more prone to supply chain disruptions than businesses located in more favorable locations? Does a
sparse transportation network constrain the supply chain setup, such that it is more vulnerable and
more likely to be disrupted?
This paper serves as a conceptual gateway for further research into supply chain disruptions in sparse
transportation networks, and develops a new framework for the categorization of supply chains, based
on the number of links and modes available in the transportation network. Sparse transportation
networks can be categorized as constrained supply chains with an unfavorable supply chain setup.
Within the constrained supply chain framework, a company can address its locational disadvantage by
either redesigning the supply chain towards a better structure, in order to gain better location, or by
redesigning the supply chain towards a better organization, in order to gain better preparedness.
 Jan Husdal 3

INTRODUCTION
Transportation networks like freeways and interstate highways are the main backbone of modern
society and play an important role in supply chains. Consequently then, the reliability of the
transportation network or the reliability of supply chains is thus a decisive factor not only in terms of
market outreach and competition, but also in terms of continuity, to ensure a 24/7 operation of the
community we live in. Any threat to the reliability of the transportation network constitutes a
vulnerable spot, a weakness in the supply chain.
This vulnerability of the transportation network as part of the supply chain is of particular
interest in countries or regions with sparsely populated areas, and hence, a sparse transportation
network. Typically traits of such regions are few transportation mode options and/or few
transportation link options for each transportation mode, for example maybe only one railway line and
two roads, no port, no airport. It should not come as a surprise then that the nature of sparse
transportation networks, and thus sparse supply chains, makes them vulnerable to many different kinds
of internal and external risks. With only a few transportation modes and links available between
population centers, these population centers become extremely vulnerable to any disruption in the
transportation system or supply chain, since in a possible worst-case scenario no suitable alternative
exists for deliveries to or from these communities.
From the community is as important as to the community, since the supply chain goes both
ways, meaning that no goods or supplies can come in and no manufactured goods or supplies to
companies in other locations can leave. Few will question that the sender, the recipient, the freight
hauler, or society at large, experience additional costs when goods or people cannot reach their
destinations in time or in space. A non-functioning, or at best, badly-functioning link will impose costs
on the user in terms of loss of time, additional operation costs or other costs as a result of delays and
diversions. Transporters of perishable goods will also experience a loss of value.
The question then arises, are businesses located in regions with sparse transportation networks
in fact more prone to supply chain disruptions than businesses located in transportation-wise more
favorable locations? Does the sparse transportation network influence the setup of the supply chain?
Does a sparse transportation network in fact constrain the supply chain setup, such that it deviates
from the ideal and thus is more vulnerable and more likely to be disrupted?
This paper will not attempt to answer these questions but synthesize some of the recent
literature on supply chain risk and apply it in a transportation vulnerability setting, and point towards
some potentially interesting alleys for future research.
As supply chains grow more and more complex and intertwined, special consideration should
be given to the notion in (1) that “should systemic financial risk lead to a serious deterioration in the
world economy, the prospects for collaborative (risk) mitigation may be reversed on several fronts
simultaneously as attention turns to more immediate concerns.” This could imply that supply chain
disruptions are likely to increase in the near future, as companies are struggling to keep themselves
and governments are struggling to keep the national economies afloat, thus jeopardizing collaborative
efforts in supply chain risk management, which at present may seem less important than the immediate
economic concerns.

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK VULNERABILITY AND

SPARSE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS
The vulnerability of transportation networks is a subject that has received increased interest within the
academic community in recent years (2)(3)(4)(5)(6), and has been the topic of several international
conferences, most notably Taking up the invitation in (5) to bring out and recognize the vulnerability
in the road transportation system as a meeting point for all the different strands of transportation
reliability research and other issues (p.127), the focal point of this paper is to look at the importance of
transportation networks from a supply chain perspective, and how companies my overcome the
disadvantages of unfavourable locations.
 Jan Husdal 4

In (5), the argument is made that studies of transportation network reliability to a large extent
only seek to quantify the probability and to some degree the extent of failure, disregarding the
potential for successfully handling the effects of failure, since obviously, vulnerability only then
becomes a true vulnerability if the effects of failure indeed result in severe consequences.
A methodology used in (6) identifies the most vulnerable road links by means of an
accessibility index that have the greatest socio-economic impact. Transferred to supply chain
management this could mean that links with the greatest socio-economic impact also are the most
important supply chain links. Similarly it should be possible to assess the vulnerability of
transportation-dependent business in relation to their location, and hence, assess the vulnerability of a
company’s supply chain at that given location.
The issue of sparse transportation networks is well illustrated in the figure below, showing
same-scale maps of the road network Norway (the author’s home country) and Europe, taken from an
online route planner. Lack of details and missing road links aside, it is clear that Central Europe enjoys
a much better denser road network than the Scandinavian countries, and Norway in particular, and
hence has many more rerouting options in case of disruptions. Thus, supply chain (road) disruptions
will have potentially more severe implications in Scandinavia than in the rest of Europe.

FIGURE 1 The sparse road network in Norway and Sweden compared to the dense road
network in Central Europe. (Source: viamichelin.com)

A supply chain that is subject to a sparse transportation network can not be set up freely, but is
limited by constraints, mainly transportation mode choice (air, sea, rail, road) and transportation link
choice within each mode. Taking both modes and links into consideration, transportation networks or
supply chains can be divided into four principal types of networks or supply chains: Free, Directed,
Limited and Constrained. Figure 2 illustrates this division.

FIGURE 2 Four categories of networks or supply chains, based on the number of modes
(rail, sea, air, road) and number of links within the modes that are available.

In a free supply chain there are little or no constraints as to transportation modes and there is a
dense transportation network with many possible links. In a directed supply chain there are many
 Jan Husdal 5

possible links, but few modes, thus directing the supply chain towards a certain mode or set of modes.
In a limited supply chain there are many mode choices but few links, which creates an overall limited
setup. In a constrained supply chain there are few choices as to mode and/or links and in worst case
the supply chain is locked to one mode and very few, or maybe, only one link.

SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS

CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT
From a broad perspective, a supply chain is not a chain, but an interwoven network consisting of
suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and end-customers, where three kinds of flows take
place: material (items or goods), financial (money) and information (documents and records). In
popular terms this is often referred to as “boxes, bucks and bytes”. Supply chain disruptions often
focus on a disruption in the first flow (material), but a disruption with crippling effects can essentially
occur in any of these flows.
Supply Chain Management (SCM) , formerly known as logistics, is not a new science, but it is
only in the last decade or so that supply chain vulnerability and supply chain risk management has
gained attention (7),(8),(9),(10). An excellent overview, linking supply chain management with risk
management is given in (11). Globalization is a major reason why. Sparked by global outsourcing and
offshoring, different industrial sectors in different supply chains are becoming increasingly vulnerable
to disruption, dislocation, total breakdown or simply failure to deliver according to requirements
(12),(13)(14).
Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) has evolved from SCM and is a relatively new field.
Nonetheless, it has many similarities with the already established field of Business Continuity
Management (BCM). BCM is an interdisciplinary science and concerned with how an organization
will recover and restore partially or completely interrupted critical function(s) within a predetermined
time after a disaster or extended disruption.
With lean and cost-effective supply chains stretched around the globe, it is easy to see how a
supply chain disruption situation quickly can develop into a business continuity situation. The now
classic textbook example of Nokia versus Ericsson in the Albuquerque plant fire incident shows how
proactive and reactive supply chain risk management can make or break a company’s existence
(15)(16).
In a sparse transportation network setting, this author contends that a well-handled supply
chain or transportation network disruption can translate into business continuity, while an ill-handled
supply chain or transportation network disruption can translate into business dis-continuity. That is
why SCRM can and should draw upon BCM for advice.
The business continuity perspective is important, since it illustrates an important point made in
a report (1), stating that even a relatively small supply chain disruption caused by a localized event
may have consequences across the global economic system. The supply chain is an essential function
in every organization, and when disrupted, there can be serious consequences not just for one single
organization.

THE COST OF SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS

Interestingly, a study about how Norwegian businesses adapt to transportation disruptions (17)
reported that road transportation is the mode of transportation that is that most flexible in case of
supply chain disruptions. This should indicate that businesses relying heavily on road transportation in
a constrained supply chain setup may be less vulnerable than businesses where the supply chain is
shouldered upon other modes of transport, like rail or sea.
Regardless of the inherent flexibility of road transport to change routes quickly, sparse
networks are more likely than dense networks to be ridden with bottlenecks (18) that can cause severe
delays or disruptions. In (19) a point is made that the typical socio-economic impact of road network
disruptions in Western Norway varies greatly, depending on a) the traffic volume, b) the actual
possibilities of rerouting traffic and c) the composition of the traffic that uses the impacted road. The
 Jan Husdal 6

study comprised 7 of the most avalanche-prone Norwegian counties with a total population of 1.7
million and a total road length of 38,000 kilometers (23,000 miles). Over a five-year period, 2001-
2006, the average number of registered incidents was 136 incidents per year, with an average closure
time of 16 hours per incident. The average hourly socio-economic cost was calculated to be $4,000 per
incident, varying between mere $400 and as much as $16,000 per hour, depending on the three factors
mentioned above. What should be noted here is that these are generalized costs, which do not take into
account the actual and individual losses that are incurred by travelers, freight haulers or businesses at
either end of the supply chain.
Any disruption has a certain cost associated with it, and granted, passive acceptance of the
disruption risk and passive acceptance of the disruption costs may be the common choice among many
companies. Preparing for potential disruptions by investing in countermeasures may on the other hand
lower the cost of disruptions.
Several authors have addressed the issue of finding the optimal trade-off between supply chain
security, vulnerability and cost. Both in (20), and later in (21), this trade-off approach is used within
the framework of security management related to electronic business. Another very similar approach
can be seen in (22) and (23) in determining the optimal value for investing in supply chain security.
The actual cost of disruption or cost of recovering from a disruption will depend on the
mitigative pre-emptive actions and the contingent recovery actions. The higher the mitigation costs,
the lesser the economical impact of disruptions. However, there is the danger of “over insuring”
against disruptions (24), and SCRM is concerned with balancing risk and reward.

ROBUSTNESS, FLEXIBILITY AND RESILIENCE

In recent years, several “buzzwords” have been linked to supply chain risk and vulnerability in various
ways, among which are robustness, flexibility, and resilience. Agility is another term that has
emerged, and albeit not equal to, in the context of this paper, it will be considered to imply the same as
flexibility. An overview of these terms as they relate to the vulnerability of a production system is
provided in (25):
Robustness is the ability to accommodate any uncertain future events or unexpected
developments such that the initially desired future state can still be reached. Flexibility is the ability to
defer, abandon, expand, or contract any investment towards the desired goal. Resilience is the ability
of a system to return to its original state or move to a new desirable state after being disturbed.
Flexibility, robustness and resilience are different sides of the same coin, yet at the same time
distinctively different animals. Flexibility is the inherent capability to modify a current direction to
accommodate and successfully adapt to changes in the environment, whereas robustness refers to the
ability to endure such changes without adapting. Resilience, in essence, is the ability to survive these
changes despite severe impact.
In (26) the focus is on security and resilience by upholding flexibility and redundancy as two
methods with the greatest potential to create resilience. Flexibility can here be seen as a contingency
action (actions taken in the event of a disruption) and redundancy can be seen as a mitigation action
(actions taken in advance of a disruption, hence incurring a cost regardless of disruption), akin to the
distinction between contingency and mitigation in (27), which also identified a third “action”: Passive
acceptance of the disruption risk and disruption, which more often than not appears to be the default
strategy, even when it is not appropriate.
Robustness, flexibility, and resilience stand out as three strategies or approaches towards
supply chain disruptions. These three terms are distinctively different and which strategy that works
best would depend not only on the supply chain in question as a whole, but also which part of the
supply chain that may be vulnerable. A best-practice supply chain is likely to encompass all three,
making it robust, flexible and resilient at the same time.
There is a distinct notion of severity in these definitions, and in a business setting, the ability
to survive (resilience) is likely to be much more important than the ability to quickly regain stability
(robustness) or the ability to divert (flexibility).
 Jan Husdal 7

THE IMPACT OF SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS

The notion of supply chain resilience (28) is important when considering the impact of supply chain
disruptions on supply chain performance and the time it takes to recover from a disruption. In both
(25) and (29) a disruption profile is used to illustrate the incremental impacts and corresponding
recovery activities, showing that recovery time and long term impacts are a function of resilience.

FIGURE 3 A typical disruption profile, adapted from (21), (27) and (28)

An almost identical figure is used in (30) in describing the business continuity planning
methodology, where the time that elapses from when an incident occurs until normal operations are
resumed is called maximum tolerable disruption or maximum tolerable outage. The disruption profile
in (29) thus becomes a statement, while the profile in (30) becomes an objective.
A good illustration of where the susceptibility to disruption (and hence, the resilience and
ability to recover) is a determining variable in the strength of a supply chain can be seen in a report
from the New Zealand research initiative “Resilient Organisations” (31). Here, resilience is a 3-fold
construct, depending on 1) keystone vulnerabilities, 2) situation awareness and 3) adaptive capacity.
The adaptive capacity becomes particular important in recovering from a disruption. In a supply chain
this could be viewed as the the inter- and intra-organizational “preparedness” (or worst case, “un-
preparedness”).
It is the preparedness then that determines the actual impact of supply chain disruptions.
However, supply chain resilience is not only a function of organizational preparedness, it is also a
function of supply chain design.

DO SUPPLY CHAIN CHARACTERISTICS MATTER?

The notion that supply chain characteristics play a major role in supply chain disruptions is greatly
underscored in (32), where the severity of supply chain disruptions is related to supply chain design
characteristics (supply chain density, supply chain complexity and node criticality) and supply chain
mitigation capabilities (recovery capability and warning capability). In brief: supply chain structure
and supply chain organization. It is argued that supply chain disruptions and the associated operational
and financial costs should be viewed as a normal more than an abnormal occurrence. However, there
are specific factors that contribute to or dampen the severity of such disruptions.
These factors are presented in the form of 6 propositions: Firstly, proposition 1 to 3, an
unplanned event that disrupts a supply chain is more likely have a severe impact if the supply chain
structure is 1) dense or 2) complex or 3) contains critical nodes or bottlenecks. Secondly, proposition
4 and 5, an unplanned event that disrupts a supply chain is less likely have a severe impact if the
supply chain 4) has proactive or reactive recovery capabilities or 5) warning capabilities, as in
 Jan Husdal 8

detection and dissemination of critical information. Thirdly, proposition 6, combining the previous 5
propositions, an unplanned event disrupting a supply chain that is dense, complex and with many
critical nodes is less likely to be severe if there is a capability to quickly detect and disseminate
information about the event and thus respond and correct in a proactive or reactive manner.
Taking this proposition into sparse transportation networks, it may very well be that the
structure or design of the supply chain in a sparse transportation network is already pre-determined,
given and constrained by the transportation network, and thus, not chosen by the companies in the
supply chain. In other words, proposition 3 holds, leaving proposition 4 and 5 (and 6) as the key attack
points for lessening the impact of supply chain disruptions.

A MODEL FOR ANALYZING LOCATION-SPECIFIC SUPPLY

CHAIN VULNERABILITY
A typical supply chain consists of a company with incoming raw materials from an upstream supplier
and outgoing products to a downstream customer, as seen in the figure below. On one side the supply
chain is subject to certain potential disruptions, which act as risks. On the other side the supply chain
has certain characteristics, which make up the supply chain vulnerability.
The list categories of supply chain risks varies within the supply chain risk literature, but
predominantly a division of five is usually applied: 1) supply-side risk, 2) operational risks, 3)
decision risks, 4) demand-side risks and 5) external risks (33). In terms of supply chain vulnerability
and within the realm of this particular research, the correct categorization of risks is not the issue at
hand; what is at hand is the degree of supply chain vulnerability, i.e. how the supply chain
characteristics influence whether or whether not potential disruptions may or may not impact the
supply chain.
Applying the notions in (32), the supply chain characteristics are divided into 1) structural (or
locational) and 2) organizational characteristics, respectively. The figure below illustrates how the
vulnerability of supply chain is determined by its structural and organizational characteristics.
 Jan Husdal 9

FIGURE 4 The relationship between risk, vulnerability, supply chain disruptions and supply
chain characteristics

The term “location” refers to not only a physical location, but also to a sequential location
within the supply chain. The term “organizational” refers first and foremost to which management and
information structures that are in place. These two elements, structural and organizational, determine
the degree of adaptability or capacity of the company to deal with or handle disruptions that might
occur. The term “location” is furthermore used to mark the notion that the structure of the supply chain
in a sparse transportation network is constrained by the transportation network.
In terms of location, suppliers (or customers) can be clustered together in a dense formation or
not, the supply chain may be complex with or without interdependencies, or it may be characterized by
critical nodes, through which every item in the chain has to pass. The organizations within the supply
chain may or may not be equipped with an adaptive capacity or preparedness, and in addition, there
may or may not be established a protocol of system wide sharing of information on events within the
chain.
Although in most cases the structure and organization of a supply chain are not haphazardly
put together, the degree of order and focus in supply chain structure and supply chain organization will
vary from company to company. It can be said that the level of structural or organizational disorder
that is present in a company’s supply chain equals the cost the company is willing to face vis-à-vis
potential supply chain disruptions, while the level of organizational or structural order is the premium
the company is willing to pay to insure itself against potential supply chain disruptions.
The figure below takes the notion of supply chain structure and organization in (32) and adds a
new perspective: supply chain categories, as described earlier

FIGURE 5 The severity of supply chain disruptions depend on supply chain structure and organization

The idea in the above figure is similar to (32), but differs from it in several ways: Supply chain
disruptions are determined by the supply chain structure (design characteristics) and supply chain
organization (mitigation capabilities). The production philosophy is the ideal world, while the
transportation network, together with organization and structure make up the real world, in which the
supply chain must function. The organization holds the preparedness, while the structure holds the
location. Finally, the information flow in the supply chain serves as facilitator towards how supply
chain disruptions are handled (warning capabilities). Location and preparedness thus become two
important factors in addressing supply chain disruptions.
 Jan Husdal 10

OVERCOMING LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE

If we contend that the supply chain structure represents a company’s location and the supply chain
mitigation capabilities or organization represent a company’s preparedness, ideally then, if all
contributing positive or negative factors noted in the six propositions in (32) are bolstered or lessened
to the full, a company will be both well-located and well-prepared vis-à-vis any form of disruption.
Conversely, given a supply chain structure prone to disruption, combined with a lack of organization,
a company will be both badly located and badly prepared.

FIGURE 6 The influence of structure and organization on a company’s preparedness and

locational favorability

In (32) the severity of supply chain disruptions are linked to a) the supply chain design
characteristics and b) the supply chain mitigation capabilities. In other words: the impact of supply
chains disruptions depend on a) the structure and b) the organization of the supply chain, where the
structure makes up the physical side (a) of the supply chain and the organization makes up the human
side (b) of the supply chain. These two parts are complementary in that both are needed for the
successful handling of a supply chain disruption, while at the same time, a deficiency in one part can
be compensated by the strength of the other part: A badly structured supply chain can be strengthened
by making it a well organized supply chain.
This is akin to the notion in (31), where the focus is NOT on the vulnerability of systems to
failure, but on the ability to manage and minimize the impact of any failures. This is achieved by
focusing on organizational preparedness. This implies that firms placed in disadvantageous locations
can notably better their supply chain by focusing on improving their supply chain characteristics.
Thus, in regions or countries with sparse transportation networks or few transportation mode
choices the structure or design of the supply chain becomes an important factor in determining if a
company has an advantageous or a disadvantageous location. By re-designing the structure, locational
disadvantages can be lessened or entirely eliminated, and a supply chain wise “badly” located
company can become “well” located. Conversely, if the structure cannot be improved (or not be
improved further), by re-designing the organization, proper training and adding supply chain visibility
such that early warnings and early proactive and reactive actions are possible, a company can turn
from badly prepared into well prepared. Robustness, flexibility and predominantly resilience will be
key components in addressing locational disadvantage.
Overcoming locational disadvantage may be of particular interest in a supply chain life cycle
perspective (34), where supply chains come into existence and cease to function as business
opportunities come and go. A constrained supply chain setting may affect the ability to form new
supplier and customer relationships (i.e. supply chains), and thus, this may limit the business
opportunities for companies in disadvantageous locations.
 Jan Husdal 11

CONCLUSION
This paper has made the argument that sparse transportation networks can be viewed as a special case
of unfavorable and constrained supply chain setup, with maybe little room for improvement of the
supply chain structure itself.
Within this framework a company can address its supply chain structure and organization.
Locational disadvantage may be overcome by redesigning the supply chain towards a better structure,
in order to gain better location, or redesigning its organization, in order to gain better preparedness.
The latter may also be the case with favorably located (or supply chain structured) businesses
that may have overlooked their preparedness.
The implication that should be apparent then is that supply chain structure and organization
essential element of supply chain management at the operational, the tactical, and the strategic level,
and should not be overlooked. A well-handled supply chain or transportation network disruption can
translate into business continuity, while an ill-handled supply chain or transportation network
disruption can translate into business dis-continuity.

FUTURE RESEARCH
What is still lacking is a full empirical underpinning of the arguments made in this paper. With sparse
transportation networks as a departure point, the following questions should be addressed:

1. Does the location reflect a typical supply chain structure?

2. Does the supply chain structure given by the location lead to typical supply chain disruptions?
3. Does the location have bearings on the organizational preparedness for certain disruptions?
4. Does the location lead to typical mitigation and contingency measures?

One way of answering these questions could be to 1) survey and sort (a sufficient number of )
companies according to the four supply chain categories mentioned in this paper, in order to verify
whether certain geographic locations are likely to have certain supply chain categories. Thereafter 2)
investigate which supply chain disruptions that are typical for said locations (and supply chain
categories). In addition, 3) estimate the degree of vulnerability these supply chain categories represent,
i.e. is ”directed” worse or better than ”limited”? Finally, 4) how do companies in the different supply
chain categories prepare for supply chain disruptions?
It is hoped then that Transportation Management, Freight management, Logistics, Supply
Chain Management and Business Continuity Management can find a common research ground that is
still not fully explored, and bridge the gap that exists today between the different professions.

REFERENCES
1. World Economic Forum (2008) Hyper-optimization and supply chain vulnerability: an
invisible global risk? In: Global Risks 2008 – A Global Risk Network Report, REF: 090108,
World Economic Forum, Switzerland.
2. Dalziell, E. and Nicholson, A. J. (2001) Risk and impact of natural hazards on a road network.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 159-166.
3. Berdica, K. (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and
should be done. Transport Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 117-127.
4. Husdal, J. (2005) The vulnerability of road networks in a cost-benefit perspective.
Proceedings of the the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (TRB 2005),
Washington DC, USA, 9-13 January 2005.
5. Jenelius, E.; Petersen, T. and Mattson, L.-G. (2006) Importance and exposure in road network
vulnerability analysis.Transportation Research Part A 40, pp. 537-560.
 Jan Husdal 12

6. Taylor, M.; Sekhar, S.; D’Este, G. (2006) Application of Accessibility Based Methods for
Vulnerability Analysis of Strategic Road Networks. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 6,
No. 3-4, pp. 267-291.
7. Lambert, D.M.; Cooper, M.C. ; Pagh, J.D. (1998) Supply Chain Management: Implementation
Issues and Research Opportunities. International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol.9,
No.2, pp. 1-19.
8. Svensson, G. (1999) A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply
chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol.30,
No.9, pp. 731-749.
9. Harlan, C.; Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003) Risk in Supply Network. Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol.9, No.1, pp.51-62.
10. Peck, H. (2005) Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol.35, No.3/4, pp. 210-229.
11. Paulson, U. (2007) On Managing Disruption Risks in the Supply Chain – the DRISC model.
PhD dissertation. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
12. Brindley, C. and Ritchie, B. (2004) Risk Characteristics of the Supply Chain - A Contingency
Framework. In: Brindley, C. (Ed.) Supply Chain Risk. Ashgate, pp. 28-42.
13. Kleindorfer, P. R. & Wassenhove, V. L. N. (2004) Managing risk in global supply chains. In:
Gatignon, H. and Kimberly, J. R. (Eds.) The INSEAD-Wharton Alliance on Globalizing –
Strategies for Building Sucessful Global Businesses. Cambridge University Press, pp. 288-
305.
14. Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J. T. (2008) Global Supply Chain Risk Management. Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 133-155.
15. Eglin, R. (2003) Can Suppliers Bring Down Your Firm? Times Online, November 23, 2003.
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/senior_executive/article1024873.ece.
Acessed October 24, 2008.
16. Norrman, A. and Jansson, U. (2004) Ericsson's proactive supply chain risk management
approach after a serious sun-supplier event. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 434-456.
17. Askildsen T.C. (2004) Ekstremværsituasjoner og transporteffekter: Næringslivets
transporttilpasninger til klimaeffekter (Norwegian). Report 2004:10, Cicero Center for
International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway. English: Extreme weather
and effects on transport: How businesses adapt to climate change.
18. Bråthen, S. Lægran, and S., Husdal, J. (2004) Flaskehalser for langdistanse godstransport på
veg (Norwegian) Project report no. 245701, Sweco Grøner, Oslo, Norway. English:
Bottlenecks in Road Freight Transport in Norway.
19. Bråthen, S., Husdal, J. and Rekdal, J. (2008). Samfunnsøkonomisk verdi av rassikring
(Norwegian). Report 0801, Molde Research Institute, Molde, Norway. English: The socio-
economic value of avalanche and rockfall mitigation.
20. Teufel, S.and Erat, A. (2001) Sicherheitsmanagement im Electronic Business. In: Meier, A.
(Ed.) Internet & Electronic Business. Herausforderung an das Management. Orell Füssli
Verlag, pp. 211-232.
21. Teuteberg, F. (2008) Supply Chain Risk Management: A Neural network Approach. In: Ijoui,
R. E. A. (Ed.) Strategies and Tactics in Supply Chain Event Management. Springer Verlag,
pp. 99-118.
22. Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G.H. (2005) Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains.
Production and Operations Management ,Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 53-68.
23. Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D. and Xanthopoulos, A. (2007) An analytical methodological
framework for the optimal design of resilient supply chains. International Journal of Logistics
Economics and Globalisation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
24. Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2004) Managing Risk To Avoid Supply Chain Breakdown. MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 53-61.
25. Asbjørnslett, B. E. and Rausand, M. (1997) Assess the vulnerability of your production
system. ReportNTNU 97018. Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU,
Department of Production and Quality Engineering, Trondheim Norway.
 Jan Husdal 13

26. Rice, J.B. and Caniato, F. (2003) Building a Secure and Resilient Supply Network. Supply
Chain Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 22-30.
27. Tomlin, B. (2006) On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing
Supply Chain Disruption Risks. Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 639-657.
28. Walters, D. (2007) Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in Logistics.
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK).
29. Sheffi, Y. (2005) The Resilient Enterprise. Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive
Advantage. MIT Press.
30. Cornish, M. (2007) The business continuity planning methodology. In: The Definitive
Handbook of Business Continuity Management. 2nd ed., Ed. Hiles, A., Wiley and Sons, pp.
105-118.
31. Mc Manus, S. et al (2007) Resilience Management – A Framework for Assessing and
Improving the Resilience of Organisations. Research Report 2007/01, Resilient Organisations,
New Zealand.
32. Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J. & Handfield, R. B. (2007) The
Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities.
Decision Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 131-156.
33. Christopher, M. (2005) Managing risk in the supply chain. In: Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, 3rd ed, Prentice Hall, pp. 233-258.
34. Solvang, W. D. (2001) Architecture for supply chain analysis and methodology for
quantitative measurement of supply chain flexibility. PhD dissertation, 2001:69. NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway.