6. Discussion
6.3 Further Research
As has been implied, there is a need for further research efforts focused on accumulating empirical evidence for the validation and assessment of measurement properties and data surmounting the limitations of the present study. Such research is needed to address how other variables relate to supply chain performance. Wearable interface in IoT, for example, has received inadequate attention in MIS and technology innovation theories. Further research could also investigate the relative importance of the factors impacting each stage of the supply chain process. These efforts should involve studies identifying the organizational factors which affect such independent variables as process fit, information quality, and system support. Also, special attention should be focused on data collected in various industries or specific context over an extended period. The analysis of such data may enable conclusions to be drawn about both more generalized relationships among variables and causality.
29
References
Armbrust, M., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., & Rabkin, A. (2010). A view of cloud computing.
Communications of the ACM, 53(4),
50.doi:10.1145/1721654.1721672
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: A survey. Computer Networks,
54(15), 2787-2805. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage Journal of Management,
17(1), 99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations& Production Management, 19(3), 275-292. doi:10.1108/01443579910249714
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169-196.
Cegielski, C. G., Allison Jones‐Farmer, L., Wu, Y., & Hazen, B. T. (2012). Adoption of cloud computing technologies in supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 23(2), 184-211. doi:10.1108/09574091211265350
Chang, R. M., Kauffman, R. J., & Kwon, Y. (2014). Understanding the paradigm shift to computational social science in the presence of big data. Decision Support Systems, 63, 67-80. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.08.008
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188.
Chiang, R. H. L., Goes, P., & Stohr, E. A. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics Education, and Program Development. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 3(3), 1-13. doi:10.1145/2361256.2361257
Cicchetti, D. V., Koenig, K., Klin, A., Volkmar, F. R., Paul, R., & Sparrow, S. (2011). From Bayes through marginal utility to effect sizes: a guide to understanding the clinical and statistical significance of the results of autism research findings. J Autism Dev Disord, 41(2), 168-174.
doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1035-6
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1-20.
DeGroote, S. E., & Marx, T. G. (2013). The impact of IT on supply chain agility and firm performance: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management,
30
33(6), 909-916. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.09.001
Dong, S., Xu, S. X., & Zhu, K. X. (2009). Research Note—Information Technology in Supply Chains: The Value of IT-Enabled Resources Under Competition. Information Systems
Research, 20(1), 18-32. doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0195
Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359-383.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.004
Garrison, G., Kim, S., & Wakefield, R. L. (2012). Success factors for deploying cloud computing.
Communications of the ACM, 55(9), 62. doi:10.1145/2330667.2330685
Gartner. (2014). The Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.gartner.com/doc/2667526
Gartner. (2015). Research Guide: The Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2015. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/2966917
Graham, M. (2011). Cloud Collaboration: Peer-Production and the Engineering of the internet.
67-83. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9920-4_5
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333-347.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
21(1/2), 71-87. doi:10.1108/01443570110358468
Gupta, P., Seetharaman, A., & Raj, J. R. (2013). The usage and adoption of cloud computing by small and medium businesses. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 861-874. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.07.001
Hancke, G. P., Markantonakis, K., & Mayes, K. E. (2010). Security Challenges for User-Oriented RFID Applications within the Internet of Things. Journal of Internet Technology, 11(3), 307-313.
Helland, P. (2013). Condos and clouds. Communications of the ACM, 56(1), 50.
doi:10.1145/2398356.2398374
Huo, B., Qi, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2014). The impact of supply chain integration on firm performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 369-384.
doi:10.1108/scm-03-2013-0096
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital Ubiquity - How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business. Harvard Business Review, November, 91-99.
IDC. (2014). IDC Predictions 2014: Battles for Dominance — and Survival — on the 3rd Platform (244606). Retrieved from
IDC. (2015). IDC Predictions 2015: Accelerating Innovation — and Growth — on the 3rd Platform (252700). Retrieved from
31
IEEE. (2014). Top Technology Trends for 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/membership/Top-10-Tech-Trends-in-2014
IEEE. (2015). Top Technology Trends for 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/membership/Top-Tech-Trends-for-2015
Ilie-Zudor, E., Kemény, Z., van Blommestein, F., Monostori, L., & van der Meulen, A. (2011). A survey of applications and requirements of unique identification systems and RFID techniques. Computers in Industry, 62(3), 227-252. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2010.10.004 Isoherranen, V. (2011). Analysis of Strategy Focus vs. Market Share in the Mobile Phone Case
Business. Technology and Investment, 02(02), 134-141. doi:10.4236/ti.2011.22014
Iyer, B., & Henderson, J. C. (2010). Preparing for the Future: Understanding the Seven Capabilities of Cloud Computing. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(2), 117-131.
Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., & Turrisi, R. (1990). The Detection and Interpretation of Interaction Effects Between Gontinuous Variables in Multiple Regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25(4), 467-478.
Jacobs, A. (2009). The pathologies of big data. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 36.
doi:10.1145/1536616.1536632
Jelinek, M., & Bergey, P. (2013). Innovation as the strategic driver of sustainability: big data knowledge for profit and survival. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 14-22.
doi:10.1109/emr.2013.2259978
Kalloniatis, C., Mouratidis, H., & Islam, S. (2013). Evaluating cloud deployment scenarios based on security and privacy requirements. Requirements Engineering, 18(4), 299-319.
doi:10.1007/s00766-013-0166-7
Katzan, H. J. (2009). Cloud Software Service: Concepts, Technology, Economics. Service Science,
1(4), 256-269.
Kim, E., Nam, D.-i., & Stimpert, J. L. (2004). The applicability of Porter's generic strategies in the digital age: assumptions, conjectures, and suggestions. Journal of Management, 30(5), 569-589. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.12.001
Kim, H., & Feamster, N. (2013). Improving Network Management with Software Defined Networking. IEEE Communications Magazine, February, 114-119.
Koo, C. M., Koh, C. E., & Nam, K. (2004). An Examination of Porter's Competitive Strategies in Electronic Virtual Markets: A Comparison of Two On-line Business Models. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 163-180.
Kwon, O., Lee, N., & Shin, B. (2014). Data quality management, data usage experience and acquisition intention of big data analytics. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(3), 387-394. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.02.002
Laosirihongthong, T., Tan, K. C., & Kannan, V. R. (2010). The impact of market focus on operations practices. International Journal of Production Research, 48(20), 5943-5961.
doi:10.1080/00207540903232797
32
Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Tan, G. W.-H., & Ooi, K.-B. (2013). Predicting the determinants of the NFC-enabled mobile credit card acceptance: A neural networks approach. Expert Systems
with Applications, 40(14), 5604-5620. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.04.018
Lin, A., & Chen, N.-C. (2012). Cloud computing as an innovation: Percepetion, attitude, and adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 533-540.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.04.001
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big Data- The Management Revolution. Harvard Business
Review, October, 1-9.
Miller, A., & Dess, G. G. (1993). Assessing Porter’s (1980) model in terms of generalizability, ccuracy, and simplicity Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 553-585.
Miller, D. (1987). The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 8(1), 55-76.
Miller, D. (1988). Relating porter’s business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
Mills, L. A., Knezek, G., & Khaddage, F. (2014). Information Seeking, Information Sharing, and going mobile: Three bridges to informal learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 324-334. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.008
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80-116.
doi:10.1108/01443579510083622
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oltra, M. J., & Luisa Flor, M. (2010). The moderating effect of business strategy on the relationship between operations strategy and firms' results. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 30(6), 612-638. doi:10.1108/01443571011046049
Piran, M. J., Murthy, G. R., & Babu, G. P. (2011). Vehicular Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks:
Principals and Challenges. International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous
Computing, 2(2), 38-49. doi:10.5121/ijasuc.2011.2204
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 63-78.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition. Harvard Business Review, November, 64-88.
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 63(4), 61-78.
Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2014). Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts on supply chain performance and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics,
147, 340-350. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.018
Reimann, M., Schilke, O., & Thomas, J. S. (2009). Customer relationship management and firm
33
performance: the mediating role of business strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 38(3), 326-346. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0164-y
Serrano, N., Hernantes, J., & Gallardo, G. (2013). Mobile Web Apps. IEEE Software,
September/October, 22-27.
Shin, S., Kim, K., Kim, K.-H., & Yeh, H. (2012). A Remote User Authentication Scheme with Anonymity for Mobile Devices. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 1.
doi:10.5772/50912
Sotomayor, B., Montero, R. S., Lorente, I. M., & Foster, I. (2009). Virtual infrastructure management in private and hybrid clouds. IEEE Internet Computing, 13(5), 14-22.
Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147-169.
Subashini, S., & Kavitha, V. (2011). A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing.
Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1),
1-11.doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2010.07.006
Sultan, N. (2013). Cloud computing: A democratizing force? International Journal of Information
Management, 33(5), 810-815. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.010
Sultan, N., & van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. (2012). Organisational culture and cloud computing: coping with a disruptive innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(2), 167-179.
doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.647644
Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Chong, S.-C., & Hew, T.-S. (2014). NFC mobile credit card: The next frontier of mobile payment?
Telematics and Informatics, 31(2),
292-307.doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.06.002
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research - Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423-444.
Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2010). An investigation of moderators of the link between technology use in the supply chain and supply chain performance. Information & Management, 47(7-8), 364-371. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.08.004
Vouk, M. A. (2008). Cloud Computing – Issues, Research and Implementations. Journal of
Computing and Information Technology, 16(4), 235-246. doi:10.2498/cit.1001391
Wagner, S. M., Grosse-Ruyken, P. T., & Erhun, F. (2012). The link between supply chain fit and financial performance of the firm. Journal of Operations Management, 30(4), 340-353.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.01.001
Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform Supply Chain Design and Management. Journal of
Business Logistics, 34(2), 77-84.
Watson, C., McCarthy, J., & Rowley, J. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards mobile marketing in the smart phone era. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 840-849.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.004
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic .Management Journal, 5,
34
171-180.
Wright, P. (1987). A Refinement of Porter’s generic strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 93-101.
Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: A resource-based view. Industrial
Marketing Management, 35(4), 493-504. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.003
Zhang, X., Pieter van Donk, D., & van der Vaart, T. (2011). Does ICT influence supply chain management and performance? International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 31(11), 1215-1247. doi:10.1108/01443571111178501
1
科技部補助專題研究計畫出席國際學術會議心得報告
日期： 104 年 10 月 1 日
一、參加會議經過
APDSI 國際學術研討會（Asia Pacific Decision Sciences Institute Conference）本年度（2015）與 The 2nd International conference on Supply Chain for Sustainability 共同舉辦，於 2015 年 7 月 19 日至 22 日在香港（Hong Kong）舉行。會議中除論文的發表，並作相關研 究成果的討論與意見的交流。我於會議中發表之論文題目為「The Research on Developing a Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy Evaluation Simulation Model」 ，論文全文附於本心得報告之「三、發 表論文全文或摘要」 。
二、與會心得
計畫編號 MOST 103-2410-H-004-110
計畫名稱 應用於供應鏈管理上之新興軟體技術的選擇與運用策略研究 出國人員
姓名 林我聰 服務機構
及職稱
政治大學資訊管理學系 教授
會議時間 2015 年 7 月 19 日至
2015 年 7 月 22 日 會議地點 香港（Hong Kong）
會議名稱
(中文)
(英文)
APDSI 2015（20th Asia Pacific Decision Sciences Institute Conference）
發表論文 題目
(中文)
(英文)
The Research on Developing a Supply Chain Risk
Management Strategy Evaluation Simulation Model
2
研討會論文發表共分為 27 個 Panels，Panel 名稱如下：
1. International Business Research 2. Manufacturing Management 3. Retail Marketing
4. Quality & Product Development 5. Supply Chain Coordination 6. Service Management
7. Social Networking
8. Supply Chain Risk & Resilience 9. Healthcare Management
10. MS/OR
11. Supply Chain Integration
12. Sustainability: Economic Benefits 13. Asia Business Strategy & Management 14. Financial Markets
15. Knowledge Management & Strategy 16. Supply Chain Purchasing & Logistics 17. e-Commerce & Social Media Network 18. Organization Behavior
19. Service Industries & Performance 20. Sustainability
21. Case Studies 22. Statistics
23. Green Trade Pacts & Strategic Alliances 24. Green Corporate Sustainability
25. Environmental Footprint - Green Design
26. Asia Pacific Supply Chain - Challenges & Opportunities in the 21st Century
27. Environmental Footprint – Marketing & POM
與會之發表人員皆能就其論文題目及所屬研究領域，提出頗為 深入的想法與創見；同時藉由和發表人員的面對面討論與意見交流，
更能掌握其研究成果的精髓，及觸發後續可能之研究議題。
三、發表論文全文或摘要
3
THE RESEARCH ON DEVELOPING A SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATION SIMULATION MODEL
Yun-Feng Wu, Department of Management Information Systems, National Chengchi
University, No. 64, Sec.2, ZhiNan Rd., Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605,Taiwan (R.O.C), 101356035@nccu.edu.tw
Woo-Tsong Lin, Department of Management Information Systems, National Chengchi University, No. 64, Sec.2, ZhiNan Rd., Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605,Taiwan (R.O.C), lin@mis.nccu.edu.tw
ABSTRACT
As part of the division of labor and globalization, enterprises, customers and suppliers are located in various countries and regions. Complex, globalized supply chain network have greatly increased total supply chain risks. Therefore, improving the management of risk associated with the supply chain has become important to many enterprises. A supply chain risk management strategy evaluation simulation model is proposed in the present research.
The simulation model, which constructed by using System Dynamics approach and the supply chain risk factor framework proposed by Chen and Lin [4], is used to evaluate the
performance of supply chain risk management strategies, and is a useful tool for managers to assess supply chain risks as well as to test and select proper supply chain risk management strategies.
Keywords: supply chain risk management; risk management strategy; simulation
INTRODUCTION
In order to reduce costs and improve overall supply chain efficiency, enterprises are looking for the best solutions over the world. Partners of the enterprise formed an extremely complex global supply chain network, and this situation also makes supply chain risk has been severely tested. Miyagi earthquake occurred on 11 March 2011 in Japan and after that a tsunami
impact Japan east coast. Japan Miyagi earthquake and tsunami happened, many enterprises industry experienced supply chain interruption like Apple i-Devices, Boeing 787 airplane etc.
In the same year Thailand floods impact computer industry. Hard drive shortages cause
4
related enterprises supply chain disruptions, and also caused huge losses in sales. We can find that want be the best companies in the supply chain could ignore the risk out occur probability.
Manuj and Mentzer noted that global supply chains have numerous links interconnecting a wide network of firms. These links are prone to disruptions, bankruptcies, breakdowns, macroeconomic and political changes, and disasters leading to higher risks and making risk management difficult[16]. Elangovan et al. noted that Supply chain risk will have a very large impact, and even further become supply chain disruptions situation [7]. As a result enterprises suffer great harm. Therefore supply chain risk management is very important for the
enterprise. Companies must pay more attention to issues of supply chain risk management strategy to reduce supply chain risk probability of occurrence. Blos et al. noted that supply chain risk management has become an important issue facing by all companies currently.
Hence, this research will focus on the issue "how to reduce the impact of the occurrence of the supply chain risk effectively" [3]. This paper uses Chen and Lin proposed the interrelatedness of risk factors, and used it to establish model for researching related risk management policies [4]. The research results can help enterprises develop related strategies to the effectiveness and reduce the impact of the supply chain its members. This paper purpose is to propose a supply chain risk management strategy decision model and use the simulation method to validate the effectiveness of the model.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The goal of this research is to establish a supply chain risk management strategy decision model. This chapter will review the relevant literature.
Supply chain operations reference model
Supply Chain Council (SCC) has developed a Supply Chain Operations Reference model (SCOR-model) to be a reference model for supply chain management cross industry. The model spans all customer interactions, spans all product transactions, from your supplier’s supplier to your customer’s customer; and spans all market interactions, from the
understanding of aggregate demand to the fulfilment of each order. The SCOR-model ver.9 comprises five components: Plan, Source, Make, Deliver and Return. Each of these
components is considered both an important intra-organizational function and a critical inter-organization process. This framework can be viewed as a strategic tool for describing, communicating, implementing, controlling, and measuring complex supply chain processes
5
to achieve good performance.
Figure 1 – supply chain operations reference model
Supply chain management (SCM)
According to Blos et al. (2009, p247), they define SCM is “the management of material, information and finance through a network of organizations (i.e. suppliers, manufacturers, logistics providers, wholesales/distributors and retailers) that aims to produce and deliver products or services for the consumers [3]. Craighead et al. (2007, p134) defined SCM is “A supply chain comprises different entities that are connected by the physical flow of materials.
These different entities are involved in the conversion, the logistics, or the selling of
materials, with the materials reaching final customers in some desired form and quantity.” [5]
And the supply chain (SC) concept originated in the traditional logistics. SCC definition the SCM is the process of all activities from production to delivery of the final product to the customer. And members include a series of suppliers, manufacturers to the final customer.
Supply chain risk management (SCRM)
Presently supply chain risk management is very important for enterprises. Jing et al. noted that SCRM main purpose is to control, monitor or evaluate supply chain risk and guarantee the continuity of the supply chain and the pursuit of best interests. And SCRM uses strategy, human resources, process, technology and knowledge to pursue the best architecture and consultation process [9]. Manuj and Mentzer noted that a globalized supply chain network is easy in chaos, collapse and lead to a greater risk due to political and economic change [16].
Researchers think SCRM is an assessment and identification process of risk by loss in supply chain, and reduce or avoid the damage caused by the enterprise through the implementation of appropriate policy coordination among members of the supply chain.
6
Tummala and Schoenherr noted that Supply chains become longer and more complex than before but its performance improvements are not achieving the expected because possibility of failure has increased [28].
Classification of supply chain risk factors
Papers about risk factors have been research for long time, and have different define and classification methods. Elangovan et al. classified risk factors in 6 parts (improper selection of materials and supply, improper use of machines and equipment, improper manpower utilization, etc.)[7]. Manuj and Mentzer classified risk factors in 4 parts (supply, requirement, operations, and security)[16]. This paper use Chen and Lin propose supply chain risk factors [4]. Their research use previous supply chain risk factors research papers and build an enterprise overall risk factor patterns model based on SCOR model. The supply chain risk factors table as Table 1. In Table 1, Source phase 4 risk factors, Make phase 3 risk factors, Deliver phase 3 risk factors, and Return phase 3 risk factors. Total 12have mutual influence and more important risk factors.
Table 1 - classification of risk factors Stage Risk factor
1.Source
1.1 Suppliers supply enterprises with poor-quality raw materials.
1.2 The enterprises have weak planning of raw materials.
1.3 Enterprise has only one supplier.
1.4 Poor information transparency between enterprise and suppliers.
2.Make
2.1 The enterprises have weak planning of manufacturing.
2.2 Flexibility of manufacturing is poor.
2.3 Cost of inventory is too high.
3.Deliver
3.1 Forecast of customers’ demand is incorrect.
3.2 The enterprises have poor flexibility of replenishment for customers’
order.
3.3 Poor information transparency between enterprise and customers.
4.Return 4.1 Quality of recycling is uncertain.
4.2 Lead time of recycling is uncertain.
Supply chain risk management strategy
Supply chain risk management strategy literature can be divided into two categories:
principle strategies and case strategies. Principle strategies, for example: Manuj and Mentzer noted that we can use six methods to solve supply chain risks, which are postponement, speculation, hedging, control/share/transfer, security and avoidance [16]. Gaudenzi and
7
Borghesi propose four phase to problems: risk assessment, risk reporting and decision, risk treatment, and risk monitoring [8]. Case strategies are against risk situations in cases. This paper use case strategies to match the risk factors in Table 1.
System dynamic and simulation
System Dynamics is an approach to understanding the behavior of complex systems over time. It is a process-oriented research method and deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behavior of the entire system. System Dynamics is also a
methodology and mathematical modeling technique specializes in a lot of variables, studies of higher order nonlinear for understanding, and discussing complex issues and problems and it developed to help corporate managers improve their understanding of industrial processes. My main research method is system dynamic.
Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process [13]. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time. In this paper we use simulation method to operate the model and prove the model is useful.
RESEARCH METHOD
This research use System Dynamics approach to construct a supply chain risk management strategy evaluation simulation model. And then we use this simulation model to evaluate the performance of risk management strategies. This research has three stages. The first stage use the supply chain risk factors proposed by Chen and Lin [4] to search the related risk
management strategies. The second stage is to build a supply chain risk management strategy evaluation simulation model. And the final stage is to use this simulation model to evaluate the performance of risk management strategies. The below tables are the risk management strategies found for the supply chain risk factors proposed by Chen and Lin [4].
8
Source stage:
Table 2 – SCRM strategies in source stage 1.1 Suppliers supply enterprises with poor-quality raw materials.
Tse & Tan, 2012; Managing product quality risk and visibility in multi-layer supply chain
S 1.1-1 Yoo et al, 2012; Inventory models for imperfect production and inspection
processes with various inspection options under one-time and continuous improvement investment
S 1.1-2
1.2 The enterprises have weak planning of raw materials.
Snyder, 2006; A tight approximation for a continuous-review inventory model with supplier disruptions
S 1.2-1 Schmitt, & Singh, 2012; A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a
multi-echelon supply chain
S 1.2-2 1.3 Enterprise has only one supplier.
Sawik, 2013; Selection of resilient supply portfolio under disruption risks S 1.3-1 Nicola & Roberta, 2010; Choosing between single and multiple sourcing based
on supplier default risk
on supplier default risk