Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114–118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Editorial

Perspectives on risk management in supply chains

A B S T R A C T

Managing risk in supply chains is an important topic in supply chain management. The
topic’s importance is due to several industry trends currently in place: increase in strategic
outsourcing by firms, globalizations of markets, increasing reliance on suppliers for
specialized capabilities and innovation, reliance on supply networks for competitive
advantage, and emergence of information technologies that make it possible to control
and coordinate extended supply chains. This article identifies some important aspects of
risk management in supply chains and summarizes the four articles that are in this special
issue. This emerging area of research interest deserves considerable attention and it is our
hope that the articles in this special issue would spur additional research on this important
topic.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The study by Hendricks and Singhal (2005) showed how

Managing risk in supply chains has emerged as an
important topic in supply chain management. The topic
derives its importance due to several industry trends
currently in place: increase in strategic outsourcing by
firms, globalizations of markets, increasing reliance on
suppliers for specialized capabilities and innovation,
reliance on supply networks for competitive advantage,
and emergence of information technologies that make it
possible to control and coordinate extended supply chains.
These trends have manifested themselves in an increase in
outsourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing and R&D
activities, low cost country (LCC) sourcing, and collabora-
tion with international supplier partners (Fisher, 1997;
Lee, 2002). While these increase the strategic options for
firms, they also increase the probability of experiencing
adverse events in supply chains that significantly threaten
normal business operations of firms in the supply chains.
Along with the increase in these initiatives, there has been
an increase in the potential and magnitude of supply chain
risks (Blackhurst et al., 2005). Recent events involving food
supply chains (for example, Melamine in infant formula
and powdered milk sourced from China) underscore risks
of extended supply chains. Supply chain disruptions can
also adversely affect the financial performance of firms.
media announcements of supply chain disruptions can
affect stock price and shareholder value. Supply chain
risks, their impact and management are receiving much
attention among practitioners and academicians alike. The
objectives of this special issue are to: (1) highlight supply
chain risk management as an important area of investiga-
tion in operations and supply chain management; and (2)
to present a compendium of articles that break new ground
in addressing methodological and theoretical issues deal-
ing with supply chain risk management.
Supply chain risk management (SCRM) can be viewed
as a strategic management activity in firms given that it
can affect operational, market and financial performance of
firms. Organizational efficiency and performance are
enhanced when strategy to reduce uncertainty takes into
account ‘‘context’’ and ‘‘environmental realities’’ (Duncan,
1972). In the case of SRCM, context can be interpreted to
refer to sources of risk, magnitude of risk and its relationship
to business objectives, and threat of disruption in supply
chains. Environmental realities can be interpreted to mean
the degree of exposure to adverse events, scope of
extended supply chains, supplier management practices,
etc. Therefore, the essence of SCRM is to make decisions
that optimally align organizational processes and decisions
to exploit opportunities while simultaneously minimizing

0272-6963/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.001
 Editorial / Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114–118
risk (Miles and Snow, 1978; Venkatraman and Camillus,
1984). Supply chain disruptions can ‘‘materialize’’ either
inside or outside a supply chain. As Wagner and Bode
(2008) point out, ‘‘the financial default of a supplier and an
earthquake that destroys production capacity are situa-
tions with completely different attributes and therefore
have different effects on the supply chain’’. This observa-
tion points to the need for effective methodology for
anticipating, identifying, classifying and assessing risks in
supply chains. The papers in this issue seek to address
these aspects of supply chain risk management. We briefly
discuss the four papers in this special issue by way of
introduction to the special issue and to motivate the issues
examined in each.
2. Value focused process engineering
Supply chain risks contribute to the overall business
risks. An example that illustrates this arises in strategic
outsourcing engagements. Firms outsource for a variety of
reasons—cost reduction, need for strategic agility, innova-
tion and to increase their ability to respond to rapidly
changing customer demands. In the case of innovation
based outsourcing engagement, achieving business objec-
tives requires effective use of integrative supply manage-
ment practices. These include information integration,
knowledge integration and design integration. It is apparent
that in these engagements, there is risk of knowledge leak,
since the firms cannot have complete control over knowl-
edge inflows and knowledge outflows. In this situation, while
the firm might achieve its innovation objective, it might run
the risk of disclosing proprietary knowledge that might
reduce its competitiveness in the future or the firm might
find itself in a ‘‘lock-in’’ situation with the supplier. These
supply management risks must be carefully identified and
evaluated vis-à-vis the business objectives. Some of these
issues have been considered in the literature (Christopher
and Peck, 2004; Narasimhan et al., 2008; Gaudenzi and
Borghesi, 2006). The strategic outsourcing context is but one
instance where the need to identify and relate risks to supply
chain activities is manifested.
In the article ‘‘Supply Chain Risk Identification with
Value-Focused Process Engineering,’’ the authors explicate
a novel methodology for identifying process-based supply
chain risk. The importance of supply chain risk identifica-
tion methodology has been recognized in the literature. As
the authors comment, it is important to have a coherent
representation of supply chain structure and use it to
express how different risks are related to the various
components of the supply chain structure. It is also
essential to classify the nature of the risks before
embarking on full blown risk assessment and developing
risk mitigation strategies. The paper addresses supply
chain risk management under the rubric of managing
organizational uncertainty.
Much of the literature on supply chain risk has dealt
with various types of risk and sources of such risk
(Norrman and Lindroth, 2004; Speckman and Davis,
2004). They have not taken a multidimensional view of
risk that encompasses supply management processes,
objectives and risk source. It is recognized in the literature
115
that risk can be studied as a ‘‘mathematical construct’’
(Cachon, 2004; Tomlin, 2006), ‘‘conceptual construct’’
(Svensson, 2004; Zsidisin and Smith, 2005) or a combina-
tion of the two approaches (Wu and Knott, 2006). As
pointed out by the authors, the conceptual view of risk
might be very useful in the risk identification stage.
The general approach to risk management should start
with the identification of business objectives and perfor-
mance goals and associated risks. Identifying risk, thus
increasing its visibility in the performance evaluation
process, leads to risk minimization strategies that can
contribute to performance gains (see for example, Ritchie
and Brindley, 2004). In this analysis stage, understanding
the hierarchy of business risks is essential.
Extant literature has focused on identifying sources of
uncertainty and the risks that emanate from them. To do
this effectively, it is necessary to develop a consistent
methodology for risk identification. Several authors have
addressed this issue (see, for example, Chopra and Sodhi,
2004; Wu and Knott, 2006). Risk identification is
succeeded by quantification of risks that can be used in
deriving risk mitigation strategies (Cachon, 2004; Sodhi,
2005). Another aspect of supply chain risk management is
that supply chain risks manifest themselves in the
disruption of supply chain flows. These can be disruptions
to material flows, information flows, knowledge flows, and
control and coordination flows. This perspective of supply
chain risks requires that sources and types of risk be
related to the flows that occur within the supply chain. The
literature on this aspect of risk identification is not
extensive (Juttner, 2005; Paulson, 2004). The Value-
Focused Process Engineering (VFPE) methodology seeks
to fill this gap in the literature. VFPE is based on the
‘‘extended-event-driven Process Chain (e-EPC) represen-
tation of business activities and processes (Scheer, 1999).
VFPE methodology integrates value-focused thinking
(VFT) developed by Keeney (1992) and e-EPC (Scheer,
2000). Nieger, Rotaru and Churilov, in their article, define a
five-step process for risk identification in supply chains.
These are: (1) Activity driven identification of risk
objectives; (2) Objective driven identification of risk
objectives; (3) Synchronized decomposition; (4) e-EPC
taxonomy of risk sources, and (5) combining events
structure to the objective structure. The authors illustrate
these five steps of the VFPE methodology by considering a
generic supply chain from Scheer (1999).
After explicating the five steps of the VFPE process, the
authors identify how the proposed methodology conforms
to the ‘‘properties’’ of supply chain risk identification
process. They argue that the suggested approach conforms
to the following properties: objective driven identification
and assessment of risk, risks included as part of objective
structure, risks linked to supply chain activities, risks linked
to individual sources, risks quantified, cross-organizational
risk visibility enabled and decomposition of risk according
to process flow enabled. The key advantage of the proposed
methodology is that it integrates conceptual views of risk
and decision sciences approach to risk analysis. The
validation of the efficacy and usefulness of the proposed
methodology can be pursued through action research or
participant observation approach.
116 Editorial / Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114–118
3. Labor management and global supply chain risk
The paper by Jiang, Baker and Frazier examines the
issue of labor turnover as a source of supply chain
disruption risk in an outsourcing context. It is an empirical
study of labor turnover problems in Chinese suppliers. The
authors link labor turnover problems to supply chain risks
such as poor quality, low productivity and unfilled orders
in supply chains. The paper examines a theoretical issue
under the rubric of supply chain risk management. The
Global Supply Chain Forum at The Ohio State University
has identified eight processes that form the foundation of
supply chain success (Lambert, 2004). Among these, two
are directly influenced by labor management issues—order
fulfillment and manufacturing flow management. It is
recognized that strategic outsourcing and off-shoring will
continue to grow as firms come under increasing cost and
competitive pressures. The need for strategic agility has
added to this impetus for outsourcing. In the context of off-
shoring, contract manufacturing and low cost country
sourcing, understanding labor management issues can be
critical for avoiding supply disruptions or under-perform-
ing suppliers. It is useful to note that Meredith (2001) has
drawn attention to the need for studying human resources
issues in operations and supply chain management.
Jiang et al. conducted their study in the Pearl River delta
region of China. They identify two major elements that
contribute worker dissatisfaction and turnover: the sour-
cing standards of (foreign) buying firm are sometimes too
high and the local suppliers’ ‘‘greed.’’ As the buying firms
strive to meet the demands of their markets and
customers, they feel the need to continually change
product specifications, tighten quality standards and
decrease lead times for delivery. Approvals for product
samples are granted later than desirable from the
perspective of the Chinese suppliers. The authors observe
that faster production lines and increasing production
volumes are typical in manufacturing plants. These lead to
‘‘unreasonable assignments’’ and extend work hours
beyond what is deemed by the workforce to be acceptable.
This study is an attempt to identify the root causes of job
dissatisfaction leading to turnover and implications for
mitigating labor-related supply chain risks.
The paper identifies three major aspects of supply chain
risk: cost risk, operational risk and reputation risk. It is
useful to note that all three of these risks are impacted by
labor management practices in suppliers’ manufacturing
plants. To understand labor turnover issues, the authors
invoke Mobley’s model that describes labor turnover
process as evolving through ten stages (Mobley, 1977):
evaluating the existing job, experiencing job dissatisfac-
tion, considering quitting, evaluating quitting and job
search costs, intending to search for alternatives, searching
for alternatives, evaluating alternatives, comparison with
present job, intention to quit and actual quitting. The
authors also invoke Lee and Mitchell’s ‘‘unfolding model’’
(1994). This theory utilizes the notions of ‘‘market pull’’
and ‘‘psychological push’’. Empirical studies have shown
that both these models are useful in understanding
employee turnovers. Using the constructs from these
theories, the authors carried out an empirical study of
Chinese workers. The survey yielded 634 usable responses
for a response rate of 21.13%. The data were analyzed using
Logit regression analysis with the ratio of probability of
quitting to probability of remaining as the dependent
variable, and human resources management, production
operations management, buyer characteristics, job condi-
tions, compensation and opinions of industry as indepen-
dent variables. The results of the analysis show that human
resources management practices are statistically signifi-
cant and therefore, are important in retaining employees
and reducing turnover. The analysis also showed that
opinions about the buyer were statistically significant.
The study by Jiang et al. has two implications for supply
chain risk management. First, since human resource
management and compensation issues were shown to
be important, it is important for buying firms to carefully
evaluate and qualify suppliers before entering into supply
contracts. It is not clear that extant literature has
emphasized these sufficiently. Generally the emphasis
has been on process and product related capabilities, and
financial strength of suppliers. The results of the study
point to an important dimension of supplier qualification
in international sourcing. Second, buying firms must invest
in supplier firms to develop their capabilities. Without
such investments, supplier capabilities might lag the
continually evolving demands placed on them by the
buyers over time. In the absence of these proactive actions
by supplier firms, supplier performance in terms of cost,
quality, delivery and flexibility might degrade to a point
that they might pose a variety of risks to the supply chain.
4. Planning for catastrophic events in supply chains
In their paper, Knemeyer, Zinn, and Eroglu develop a
proactive process for effectively planning for catastrophic
events in supply chains. They discuss the importance of
planning for events such as terrorist attacks, earthquakes,
floods, East Coast blackout in the summer of 2003, West
Coast port strike, and hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region in
the summer of 2005. While the probability of occurrence of
catastrophic events is small, the business impact asso-
ciated with such events can be extremely damaging
(Brindley, 2004). Thus, it is critical for supply chains to
have planning systems in place that enable them to
respond effectively to such events. According to the
authors, due to the increasing emphasis on efficient supply
chains with limited slack resources, the ability of firms to
cope with catastrophic events is limited, which makes this
issue even more critical for companies. The main
contribution of their paper is in proposing a sequence of
steps that firms can utilize in proactively planning for
catastrophic events in supply chains by drawing from the
extant research in risk management with specific empha-
sis on Paul Kleindorfer’s framework for risk analysis
(Cohen and Kunreuther, 2007). The proposed proactive
planning process in this research involves four critical
steps, they are: identification of key supply chain locations
and threats, estimation of probabilities and loss for each
location, evaluation of alternative countermeasures for
each location, and selection of countermeasures for each
location. Each of these steps is briefly discussed below:
 Editorial / Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114–118
According to the authors, a location in a supply chain is
considered as a key location if the interruption of its
activities results in a major disruption in the flow of goods
and services. Examples can include a sole sourced supplier,
a major distribution center, and production plants. The
authors propose utilizing some of the approaches devel-
oped in extant research such as Disruption Analysis
Network methodology (Wu et al., 2007), which assists in
identifying how the effects of disruptions propagate
throughout a supply chain, and supply chain mapping
analysis (Gardner and Cooper, 2003) for identifying key
locations. After identifying key locations, the authors
suggest applying approaches proposed by Mitroff and
Alpaslan (2003), Chopra and Sodhi (2004), and Svensson
(2004) for potential threat identification.
The next step in the proactive planning process is the
estimation of probabilities associated with catastrophic
events at each of the key locations and the resulting loss.
The authors focus on the application of expert systems and
game theory in estimating risk of single catastrophes
(Bigun, 1995; Sampson and Smith, 1982; Major, 2002).
They also suggest utilizing large catastrophe simulation
models that allow for estimating probabilities associated
with individual facilities by catastrophe type and aggre-
gating probabilities from multiple catastrophes into an
overall damage distribution for each facility.
The authors define loss estimation associated with a
facility as the total impact of the loss of the facility on the
supply chain and its resources. Specifically, the authors
consider the impact on six different types of supply chain
resources (Helferich and Cook, 2002). These include:
human resources, product/inventory, physical assets,
public infrastructure, information, and financial. Finally,
the expected loss associated with a facility in the event of a
catastrophe is computed by the product of the probability
of the event occurring at a location and the estimated loss
incurred at that location.
The final two steps involve evaluating and selecting
countermeasures for each location based on a catastrophic
risk management matrix proposed by the authors. This risk
management matrix categorizes catastrophic events by
probability of occurrence (horizontal axis) and estimated
loss (vertical axis) at a given location. The authors argue
that management has to primarily focus on events that
attain high levels on both axes, i.e., the upper right
quadrant of the matrix, and suggest potential counter-
measures for risk mitigation. The focus on off-diagonal
quadrants involves either loss mitigation or risk mitigation
and the lower left quadrant is where risk and loss
acceptance is considered.
5. Supply chain agility and risk mitigation
Braunscheidel and Suresh in their paper focus on the
notion that supply chain agility not only allows firms to
respond efficiently and effectively to unanticipated changes
in the marketplace but also works as a risk mitigation
strategy in managing anticipated and actual disruptions in a
supply chain (Christopher, 2000; Christopher and Towill,
2001, Chopra and Sodhi, 2004; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005).
Their research sheds light on factors that organizations need
117
to focus on in order to achieve high levels of supply chain
agility and effectively counteract disruptions thereby
leading to improved performance.
The authors draw from several research streams in the
areas of supply chain risk (Tomlin, 2006; Chopra and Sodhi,
2004; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005), supply chain agility
(Christopher, 2000; Christopher and Towill, 2001; Swaf-
ford et al., 2006; Narasimhan et al., 2006), organizational
flexibility (Upton, 1994; Koste and Malhotra, 1999; Slack,
2005), and organizational culture (Nahm et al., 2004;
McDermott and Stock, 1999; Zammuto and O’Connor,
1992) in developing their theoretical model. Based on the
theoretical model postulated in their research, it is
hypothesized that a firm’s supply chain agility is impacted
by three organizational practices (internal integration,
external integration with key suppliers and customers, and
external flexibility), which has not been investigated in the
extant research relating to supply chain agility, and two
cultural elements (market and learning orientation) are
posited to augment the above three organization practices.
The results of their study show that all three organiza-
tional practices, i.e., internal integration, external integra-
tion with key suppliers and customers, and external
flexibility are direct antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
flexibility. External integration with key suppliers and
customers was the strongest predictor of supply chain
agility. Thus, by achieving high levels of external integra-
tion, firms can improve their agility and be able to better
respond to market uncertainty both in terms of customer
needs and foreseen/unforeseen disruptions. External flex-
ibility (mix and volume flexibility) was found to be the
second major antecedent of supply chain agility, which
was followed by internal integration. However, internal
integration was identified as a critical factor in achieving
external integration.
With respect to the two cultural elements, market
orientation had a direct influence on both types of
integration and external flexibility. Thus, the authors have
shown that firms with high levels of market orientation
have high levels of internal and external integration and
external flexibility. They have also found that learning
orientation has a strong influence on internal integration.
6. Conclusion
The articles in this special issue break new ground in
that they make methodological and theoretical contribu-
tions to the area of risk management in supply chains. They
raise interesting questions as well as provide some
answers. The topic of risk management will continue to
be important to researchers and supply management
professionals. The twin areas of risk assessment and
identification, and risk mitigation (approaches and the-
ories) will continue to be of interest as the outsourcing
trend continues to be a dominant strategy in firms.
References
Bigun, E.S., 1995. Risk analysis of catastrophes using experts’ judgments:
an empirical study on risk analysis of major civil aircraft accidents in
Europe. European Journal of Operational Research 87 (3), 599–612.
118 Editorial / Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114–118
Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C., Elkins, D., Handfield, R., 2005. An empirically
derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain
disruptions. International Journal of Production Research 43 (19),
4067–4081.
Brindley, C., 2004. Supply Chain Risk. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
Cachon, G., 2004. The allocation of inventory risk in a supply chain: push,
pull, and advance-purchase discount contracts. Management Science
50 (2), 222–238.
Chopra, S., Sodhi, M.S., 2004. Managing risk to avoid supply chain break-
down. MIT Sloan Management Review 46 (1), 53–61.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004. Building the resilient supply chain. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 15 (2).
Christopher, M., 2000. The agile supply chain: competing in volatile
markets. Industrial Marketing Management 29 (1), 37–44.
Christopher, M., Towill, D.R., 2001. An integrated model for the design of
agile supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 31 (4), 235–246.
Cohen, M., Kunreuther, H., 2007. Operations risk management: overview
of Paul Kleindorfer’s contributions. Production and Operations Man-
agement 16 (5), 525–541.
Duncan, R.B., 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and
perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 17(3).
Fisher, M., 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard
Business Review 75, 105–117.
Gardner, J.T., Cooper, M.C., 2003. Strategic supply chain mapping
approaches. Journal of Business Logistics 24 (2), 37–64.
Gaudenzi, B., Borghesi, A., 2006. Managing risks in the supply chain using
the AHP method. International Journal of Logistics Management 17
(1), 114–136.
Helferich, O.K., Cook, R.L., 2002. Securing the Supply Chain. Council of
Supply Chain Management Professionals, Oak Brook, IL.
Hendricks, K.B., V.R. Singhal, 2005. An empirical analysis of the effects of
supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and
equity risk of the firm, Production Operations Management, 14(1).
Juttner, U., 2005. Supply chain risk management: understanding the
business requirements from a practitioner perspective. International
Journal of Logistics Management 16 (1), 120–141.
Keeney, R., 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision
making. Harvard University Press.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Saad, G.H., 2005. Managing disruption risks in supply
chains. Production and Operations Management 14 (1), 53–68.
Koste, L., Malhotra, M., 1999. A theoretical framework for analyzing the
dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Man-
agement 18 (1), 75–93.
Lambert, D., 2004. The eight essential supply chain management pro-
cesses. Supply Chain Management Review 8 (6), 18–27.
Lee, H., 2002. Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties.
California Management Review 44 (3), 105–119.
Lee, T., Mitchell, T., 1994. An alternative approach: the unfolding model of
voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review 51–89.
Major, J.A., 2002. Advanced techniques for modeling terrorism risk. White
Paper <www.guycarp.com>.
McDermott, C.M., Stock, G.N., 1999. Organizational culture and advanced
manufacturing technology implementation. Journal of Operations
Management 17 (5), 521–532.
Meredith, J., 2001. Hopes for the future of operations management.
Journal of Operations Management 19 (4), 397–402.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1978. Organization Strategy, Structure, and Pro-
cess. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mitroff, I.I., Alpaslan, M.C., 2003. Preparing for evil. Harvard Business
Review 81 (4), 109–115.
Mobley, W., 1977. Conceptual and empirical analysis of recruit training
attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology 62, 408.
Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A., Koufteros, X.A., 2004. The impact of
organizational culture on time-based manufacturing and perfor-
mance. Decision Sciences 35 (4), 579–607.
Narasimhan, R., Narayanan, S., Srinivasan, R., 2008. Role of integrative
supply management practices in strategic outsourcing. Working
Paper, Broad Graduate School of Management.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., Kim, S.W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and
agility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 24, 440–447.
Norrman, A., Lindroth, R., 2004. Categorization of supply chain risk and
risk management. Supply Chain Risk.
Paulson, U., 2004. Supply chain management. In: Brindley, C. (Ed.), Supply
Chain Risk. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 79–96.
Ritchie, B., Brindley, C., 2004. Risk characteristics of the supply chain-A
contingency framework. Supply Chain Risk.
Sampson, A.R., Smith, R.L., 1982. Assessing risk through the determination
of rare event. Operations Research 30 (5), 839–866.
Scheer, A.W., 1999. ARIS-business Process Frameworks, 3rd ed. Springer,
Berlin.
Scheer, A.W., 2000. ARIS-business Process Frameworks, 3rd ed. Springer,
Berlin.
Slack, N., 2005. The flexibility of manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 25 (12), 1190–
1200.
Sodhi, M., 2005. Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning
for a global consumer electronics company. Production and Opera-
tions Management 14 (1), 69–79.
Speckman, R.E, Davis, E.W., 2004. Risky business: expanding the discus-
sion on risk and the extended enterprise. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(5).
Svensson, G., 2004. Key areas, causes and contingency planning of cor-
porate vulnerability in supply chains. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management 34 (9), 728–748.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S., Murthy, N., 2006. The antecedents of supply
chain agility of a firm: scale development and model testing. Journal
of Operations Management 24 (2), 170–188.
Tomlin, B., 2006. On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for
managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Science 52 (5),
639–657.
Upton, D.M., 1994. The management of manufacturing flexibility. Cali-
fornia Management Review 36 (2), 72–89.
Venkatraman, N., Camillus, J., 1984. Exploring the concept of ‘‘fit’’ in
strategic management. The Academy of Management Review 9 (3),
513–525.
Wagner, S.M., Bode, C., 2008. An empirical examination of supply chain
performance along several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business
Logistics, 29(1).
Wu, B., Knott, A., 2006. Entrepreneurial risk and market entry. Manage-
ment Science 52 (9), 1315.
Wu, T., Blackhurst, J., O’Grady, P., 2007. Methodology for supply chain
disruption analysis. International Journal of Production Research 45
(7), 1665–1682.
Zammuto, R.F., O’Connor, E.J., 1992. Gaining advanced manufacturing
technologies’ benefits: the roles of organizational design and culture.
The Academy of Management Review 17 (4), 701–728.
Zsidisin, G., Smith, M., 2005. Managing supply risk with early supplier
involvement: a case study and research propositions. The Journal of
Supply Chain Management 41 (4), 44–57.
Ram Narasimhan*
Srinivas Talluri
Department of Supply Chain Management, The Eli Broad
Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824, United States
*Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: narasimh@msu.edu (R. Narasimhan)
talluri@msu.edu (S. Talluri)
Available online 7 February 2009