4.7 Article

Information management strategies and supply chain performance under demand disruptions

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2014.991456

关键词

supply chain dynamics; disruption management; risk management; simulation; supply chain management

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [71001010]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [2012RC1004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The operations management literature presents inadequate comprehensive understanding on information management strategies of mitigating supply chain disruption risks. By using control theory modelling and simulation, this study compares the disruption mitigation effects of three information management strategies. From the aspect of stability, the existing stability boundaries are revised by a new method in a two-echelon case. It shows that supply chains (SC) with popular information management strategies are not evidently more stable than traditional ones. From the aspect of disruption recovery time, an innovative two-echelon swiftest response problem under these information management strategies is formulated and solved. Results show that a collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) SC with complete SC information performs the best. However, in a later operational risk mitigation test, an information sharing (IS) SC with partial information has the smallest bullwhip effect. From the aspect of demand amplification and frequency response, an innovative frequency-response plot of order amplification is proposed in a time-continuous SC with moving average forecasts. It implies the best frequency response for concurrently mitigating both operational and disruption risks coming from a CPFR SC. But for a certain SC structure there is still a balance between mitigating bullwhip effect and quick response. Moreover, it also implies that anti-bullwhip should exist in a certain condition, as realised in our numerical experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据