International Journal of Production Economics: Dmitry Ivanov, Alexandre Dolgui

Int. J.
Production Economics 232 (2021) 107921
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Production Economics

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains during
COVID-19 pandemic: Managerial insights and research implications
Dmitry Ivanov a, *, Alexandre Dolgui b
a
Berlin School of Economics and Law, Supply Chain and Operations Management, 10825, Berlin, Germany
b
IMT Atlantique, LS2N - CNRS, La Chantrerie, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44307, Nantes, France
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The COVID-19 pandemic unveils unforeseen and unprecedented fragilities in supply chains (SC). A primary
supply chain stressor of SCs and their subsequent shocks derives from disruption propagation (i.e., the ripple effect) through
ripple effect related networks. In this paper, we conceptualize current state and future research directions on the ripple effect
COVID-19
for pandemic context. We scrutinize the existing OR (Operational Research) studies published in international
Pandemic
Disruption propagation
journals dealing with disruption propagation and structural dynamics in SCs. Our study pursues two major
Structural dynamics contributions in relation to two research questions. First, we collate state-of-the-art research on disruption
propagation in SCs and identify a methodical taxonomy along with theories displaying their value and appli
cations for coping with the impacts of pandemics on SCs. Second, we reveal and systemize managerial insights
from theory used for operating (adapting) amid a pandemic and during times of recovery, along with becoming
more resistant to future pandemics. Streamlining the literature allowed us to reveal several new research tensions
and novel categorizations and classifications. The outcomes of our study show that methodical contributions and
the resulting managerial insights can be categorized into three levels, i.e., network, process, and control. Our
analysis reveals that adaptation capabilities play the most crucial role in managing the SCs under pandemic
disruptions. Our findings depict how the existing OR methods can help coping with the ripple effect at five
pandemic stages (i.e., Anticipation; Early Detection; Containment; Control and Mitigation; and Elimination)
following the WHO classification. The outcomes and findings of our study can be used by industry and re
searchers alike to progress the decision-support systems guiding SCs amid the COVID-19 pandemic and toward
recovery. Suggestions for future research directions are offered and discussed.
1. Introduction (200%) (ISM 2020). The same report says that Chinese and European
manufacturing is at about one-half normal capacity, 53% and 50%
COVID-19 was first reported in late 2019 in Wuhan, China. By respectively.
September 15, 2020, over 29 million people were infected and While management of SC disruptions (i.e., unexpected events with
approximately 927,000 people had died. The COVID-19 pandemic has severe negative impacts such as tsunamis, fires, or strikes) has grown to
created significant uncertainty in all areas of life, supply chains (SC) in a mature research topic for the last two decades (Sawik, 2020), the
particular. SCs experience unprecedented vulnerabilities in lead times COVID-19 pandemic is viewed as a new type of disruption quite unlike
and order quantities, disruptions in network structures, and severe de any seen before (Ivanov and Das, 2020). The outbreak of COVID-19 and
mand fluctuations. Furthermore, many of these vulnerabilities are the associated global pandemic has clearly shown the key role of SCs in
encountered simultaneously. Of the Fortune 1000 companies, 94% have securely providing goods and services to society. The pandemic became
reported coronavirus-driven SC disruptions (Fortune, 2020). A recent a test for SCs regarding their robustness (i.e., the ability to withstand),
survey by ISM of about 600 US companies revealed that in mid-April flexibility (i.e., the ability to adapt), and recovery (i.e., the ability to
2020, average lead times were at least twice as long as compared to restore operations and performance after a disruption) pointing to the
"normal" operations, for Asian (222% for China, 217% for Korea, and central role of resilience in managing the SCs in this volatile world
209% for Japan), European (201%) and domestically sourced inputs (Peck, 2005; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Pettit et al., 2010,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: divanov@hwr-berlin.de (D. Ivanov), alexandre.dolgui@imt-atlantique.fr (A. Dolgui).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107921
Received 15 May 2020; Received in revised form 18 August 2020; Accepted 10 September 2020
Available online 15 September 2020
0925-5273/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Ivanov and A. Dolgui International Journal of Production Economics 232 (2021) 107921
Brandon-Jones et al. 2014, Ivanov, 2018; Wood et al., 2019). A number and logistics presents a body of promising methods and outcomes (Altay
of resilience-related questions have arose throughout the COVID-19 and Green, 2006; Dasaklis et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2016; Dubey et al.,
pandemic; e.g., are local SCs more resilient than global ones? Are SCs 2019b; Fosso Wamba, 2020).
with lean principles (i.e., Just-in-Time and single sourcing) less resilient Our study is devoted to one dominant stressor of SCs during a
as firms with high cycle and safety inventory? Can traditional resilience pandemic in particular: disruption propagation throughout networks (i.
assets (e.g., risk inventory, capacity buffers, backup suppliers) help e., the ripple effect) and the subsequent changes within SC structures (i.
during times of pandemic? Are SCs with advanced digital twins and e., structural dynamics). Adversely, SC disruptions are stimulated by
visibility and analytics technologies more resilient? Will resilience be simultaneous disruptions and uncertainties in supply and demand. The
prized over efficiency in the post-pandemic world (i.e., should we expect existing knowledge on structural dynamics and SC ripple effect
a paradigm shift away from "design-for-efficiency" toward "design-for- modeling is multi-faceted and deserves to be analyzed due to the unique
resilience"? set of factors shaping SC adaptations during a global pandemic. Dolgui
The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on one specific aspect of et al. (2018) and Mishra et al. (2019) reviewed progress in ripple effect
network resilience, i.e., the scope and scale of the observed ripple effect research over previous years, primarily focusing on classifications of the
of disruption propagation within global SCs (Ivanov et al., 2014a; Dolgui aspects of resilience and risk type categorization. However, there is no
et al., 2018). In several contexts, disruptions can be localized without a published survey comprehensively encompassing disruption propaga
subsequent cascading throughout a network. However, in other situa tion in SCs and the resulting structural dynamics from the point-of-view
tions upstream disruptions propagating downstream from SCs adversely of OR (Operational Research) methodology.
impact the performance of individual firms and networks. According to Our study thus pursues two contributions (Fig. 1). First, we collate
Dolgui et al. (2020), the ripple effect “refers to structural dynamics and state-of-the-art research on the SC ripple effect and structural dynamics,
describes a downstream propagation of the downscaling in demand fulfilment and identify a methodical taxonomy and theories representing the value
in the supply chain as a result of a severe disruption.” Ivanov et al. (2014b) and application of quantitative methods for coping with the pandemic
state that the “Ripple effect describes the impact of a disruption on supply impact on SCs. Second, we reveal and systemize managerial insights
chain performance and disruption-based scope of changes in the supply chain from this theory that can be applied to recovering from COVID-19, as
structures and parameters.” These definitions imply that the ripple effect well as withstanding future pandemics.
refers to multi-stage networks and triggering failures in the network We scrutinize 40 quantitative studies published in 15 international
elements as a domino effect. Between 2010 and 2014, studies first journals (cf. Appendix 1) dealing with disruption propagation and
appeared in the area of the ripple effect, along with an increased interest structural dynamics in SCs. Streamlining the literature allowed us to
in disruption propagation and correlated disruptions (Liberatore et al., uncover several new research tensions and novel categorizations and
2012; Mizgier et al., 2013; Chatfield et al., 2013; Ghadge et al., 2013; classifications. To this end, our study aims to address two central
Ivanov et al., 2014a). The first explicit definition of the ripple effect has research questions (RQ):
been undertaken by Ivanov et al. (2014b) as indicated above. Thus far,
RQ1. How does the literature address issues related to the ripple effect
much progress has been made in the area deploying different method
and structural dynamics in SCs in terms of methodologies, problem
ologies and obtaining relevant managerial outcomes and recommenda
settings, outcomes and managerial insights?
tions (Swierczek, 2014; Chaudhuri et al., 2016; Scheibe and Blackhurst,
2018). RQ2. How can the existing knowledge be used to support SC managers
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous ripple effects. Haren in adapting supply networks amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and what
and Simchi-Levi (2020) observed two examples of a ripple effect trig are the potential future research opportunities?
gered by COVID-19 immediately after the epidemic outbreak. Fiat
In particular, we find that outcomes of quantitative modeling con
Chrysler Automobiles NV halted production at a car factory in Serbia in
tributions and the resulting managerial insights can be categorized into
response to being unable to receive parts from China. As Hyundai stated,
three levels: network, process, and control. Our outcomes in both
it had “decided to suspend its production lines from operating at its
managerial and theoretical domains are structured into five stages (i.e.,
plants in Korea … due to disruptions in the supply of parts resulting from
Anticipation, Early Detection, Containment, Control and Mitigation, and
the coronavirus outbreak in China.” While these observations were
Elimination) following the WHO classification. Our study can be used by
made in the second half of February 2020, the scaling of the ripple ef
industry and researchers alike to progress the decision-support systems
fects between March and May 2020 has been exponential, driven by the
guiding SCs amid the COVID-19 pandemic and thus recovering them
closures of manufacturing facilities, stores, and logistics activities, and
thereafter. Suggestions for future research directions are offered and
adversely affecting almost all industries and services worldwide (Choi
discussed.
et al., 2020; Choi, 2020; Ivanov 2020a,b; Ni et al., 2020). The World
The remainder of this study is organized as follows: in section 2, we
Economic Forum - WEF (2020) emphasized the need for firms and or
present the methodology of our study. Section 3 is devoted to analysis of
ganizations to adapt their SCs amid the COVID-19 pandemic and in light
OR theories in terms of applications and managerial insights. In Section
of future trade challenges. In its totality, the COVID-19 pandemic wreaks
4, we organize the discussion around an extrapolation of existing
havoc on SCs and thus poses a number of novel decision-making context
knowledge on pandemic situations. We discuss both managerial impli
for SC professionals and questions for researchers that are relevant amid
cations and future research angles for each pandemic stage and extend
the pandemic, as well as the course of future economic recoveries.
by cross-stage perspectives in Section 5. We conclude the paper in Sec
The motivation for our study stems from the current unprecedented
tion 6 by summarizing this study.
situation, along with the significant impacts of the pandemic on SCs,
which necessitates a rapid response to questions around the ripple effect
2. Methodology of our study
and what methods and insights can be used to assist SC managers within
this new environment. Over the last decades, an enormous array of
The literature for analysis of recent methodical contributions to
methods and tools has been developed, which can be applied to
managing the ripple effect has been selected based on a long-term au
decision-making support under uncertainty (Silbermayr and Minner,
thors’ work in the area of ripple effect over the last decade and observing
2014; Demirel et al., 2019; Li and Zobel, 2020). We refer to compre
the relevant publications along with editing several related special is
hensive surveys on these operational and disruption risks (Klibi et al.,
sues in prestigious international journals. This selection was supple
2010; Snyder et al., 2016; Shen and Li, 2017; Hosseini et al., 2019a,b;
mented by a search in the most common academic databases such as
Ghadge et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2019; Essuman et al., 2020). Similar
Scopus, ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Emeraldinsight (Emerald), Wiley
literature on epidemics and humanitarian disasters in the context of SCs
2
Fig. 1. Organization of our study.
Online Library (Wiley), Taylor & Francis Online (Taylor & Francis), theoretical tensions and managerial applications. The details of our
Springer Link (Springer), and Informs PubsOnline, to ensure that a literature review protocol are given in Fig. 2.
majority of representative studies were included in our analysis ac We followed five major inclusion criteria. The search was performed
cording to the following protocol: on April 30, 2020 and the papers published by this date in international
(supply AND chain AND disruption) AND (ripple OR cascade OR peer-reviewed journals have been included. We considered only papers
cascading OR propagation OR (correlated AND disruption) OR (struc with SC topics related to the keywords "ripple effect," "disruption
tural AND dynamics) OR transmission). propagation," "cascading," and "structural dynamics." Moreover, we
The keywords have been selected based on our expert analysis of the restricted ourselves to the papers utilizing quantitative modeling
definitions associated with the disruption propagation effects in SCs methods. For example, empirical studies have not been analyzed to
used in the extant literature. avoid too broad of an analysis scope; in spite of this, we acknowledge the
As an outcome of our expert and supplementary automatic search, rich contributions to SC risk analysis from the system-wide perspectives
we obtained a list of 121 journal papers in the areas of operational and obtained with the help of empirical methods (i.e., Pournader et al.,
supply chain research that has been manually processed and narrowed 2016; Dubey et al., 2019a, 2020). Further, we considered only papers
to meet the scope and scale of our analysis. We do not claim that the that clearly display the mechanisms of disruption propagation. In
literature analyzed in this paper represents a complete collection of all particular, we excluded papers on two-echelon problems since mean
influential contributions; however, we believe it comes close. We ingful disruption propagation must be treated in this context using three
emphasize that we do not follow a classical structured literature review echelons as a minimal complexity level to study the ripple effect.
scheme, but rather analyze the most representative studies in terms of Obviously, in a two-echelon setting, we can observe a disruption at one
Fig. 2. Literature selection criteria.
3
echelon and its impact on another echelon. However, a disruption When aggregating different methods at a larger scale, the largest
propagation (i.e., if any other entity in a network would be affected) number of studies was found in the area of network and complexity
cannot be observed to full extent. For example, if a second tier supplier is theory (24 papers); with regards to mathematical optimization, we
disrupted, the tier-1 firm would be affected as well, and the disruption observed 11 papers in total; simulation studies count for eight papers,
can propagate down to an OEM. In other words, a network for modeling while five papers are related to control theory (Fig. 3).
the ripple effect should be large enough to observe where a propagation An analysis of these aggregated categories lead us to a proposition of
ends. It might be difficult in a two-stage setting since the ripple effect classifying the existing studies into three levels, i.e., network level,
rarely ends at the next downstream stage. With that said, we acknowl process level, and control level in line with (Ivanov and Dolgui 2019)
edge numerous useful OR results, methods and insights for studying the and echoed by Golan et al. (2020). A similar classification has been used
SC resilience and disruptions on two-echelon (i.e., buyer-supplier) set by Peck (2005) who specified an infrastructure level, a process level, and
tings which can be of value for ripple effect research (Yildiz et al., 2016; an organizational network level viewing the SC as an interactive adap
Yoon et al., 2018; Hosseini et al., 2019b; Pournader et al., 2020). Finally, tive system. Such a classification appeared the most logical and conve
papers without or with insufficient information on managerial insights nient for developing further categorizations of main outcomes,
have not been included. managerial insights, and future research directions.
We now specify the differences between the network, process, and
3. Theories, major outcomes and managerial insights control levels. The major criterion used for differentiation is the scope of
the models. The network level models are characterized by a macro view
3.1. Methodical perspectives of SC structures and disruption propagation focusing on structural
properties and relations. This level operates in terms of networks and
Our analysis revealed numerous theories that have been successfully graphs from a more generalized perspective of structures and does not
applied to SC issues related to disruption propagation (Table 1). consider operational parameters. These parameters are within the scope
We found applications for the following theories and methods (in of the models at the process level, which organize the debate around the
alphabetical order): agent-based simulation; Bayesian networks; parametrized structures required to balance demands, processing ca
complexity theory; discrete-event simulation; entropy analysis; graph pacities, and supply. Typical problems at the process level are related to
theory; linear/mixed-integer programming; Markov chains; Monte- network design, location-allocation problems, and production-
Carlo simulation; optimal control; Petri nets; reliability theory; robust distribution planning in terms of flow optimization. A common feature
optimization; statistical analysis; stochastic optimization; and systems of these models is their flow-orientation (e.g., aggregate planning).
dynamics. The highest number of publications can be seen in mixed- However, these models do not elaborate on details regarding inventory
integer and linear programming and Bayesian networks (six papers control, production-ordering policies, and routing which are accom
respectively); optimal control, complexity and graph theories (five pa modated at the control level. As a difference to the process level, the
pers respectively); and reliability theory and discrete-event simulation control models operate in terms of customer orders and at a more
(four papers respectively). granular timing rather than aggregate material flows distributed over
some periods.
Table 1
Theories used in the studies on disruption propagation. 3.2. Major outcomes and managerial insights
Theory Number of Study
studies We now draw the reader’s attention toward the analysis of major
outcomes and managerial insights. A detailed paper-by-paper analysis is
Agent-Based 1 Mizgier et al. (2012)
Simulation
offered in Table 2.
Bayesian Networks 6 Cao et al. (2019), Garvey et al. (2015), Table 2 summarizes the titles, authors, journals, central research
Garvey and Carnovale (2020), Hosseini questions, methods and outcomes, and managerial insights of each
and Ivanov (2019), Hosseini et al. (2019), paper analyzed. We focus now on major outcomes and managerial in
Ojha et al. (2018)
sights, and generalize the insights from individual paper analyses at an
Complexity theory 5 Basole and Bellamy (2014), Deng et al.
(2019), Lei et al. (2020), Levner and aggregated scale according to the previously introduced classifications
Ptuskin (2018), Zeng and Xiao (2014) at the network (N), process (P), and control (C) levels. The major out
Discrete-Event 4 Dolgui et al. (2020), Ivanov (2017, 2019, comes and managerial insights that can be deduced from the existing
Simulation 2020) studies are categorized and presented in Table 3.
Entropy 2 Levner and Ptuskin (2018), Zeng and Xiao
(2014)
The detailed analysis follows.
Graph theory 5 Basole and Bellamy (2014), Li et al.
(2019), Li and Zobel (2020), Sinha et al. 3.2.1. Network level
(2019), Sokolov et al. (2016) The studies at the network level primarily look at unlocking associ
Linear/Mixed-Integer 6 Liberatore et al. (2012), Ivanov et al.
ations between network structures and risk propagations (Li et al.,
Programming (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016), Pavlov et al.
(2019) 2019). For example, Basole and Bellamy (2014) show that small-world
Markov Chains 1 Hosseini et al. (2019)a,b supply network topologies (i.e., networks where each node is con
Monte-Carlo 1 Pariazar et al. (2017) nected to several of its neighbors and a few distant nodes) consistently
Simulation outperform supply networks with scale-free characteristics (networks
Optimal Control 5 Ivanov et al. (2010, 2013, 2014a,b, 2015,
2016)
where nodes are connected to a few other nodes, while a small number
Petri Nets 1 Blackhurst et al. (2018) are connected to many other nodes). The network- and graph-theoretical
Reliability Theory/ 4 Han and Shin (2016), Osadchiy et al. studies allow us to understand potential weaknesses in SC designs,
Statistical Analysis (2016), Pavlov et al. (2020), Tang et al. taking into account the structure, connectivity, and dependence within
(2016)
the SC (Blackhurst et al., 2018). An important contribution can be seen
Robust Optimization 3 Lu et al. (2015), Özçelik et al. (2020),
Zhao and Freeman (2019) in detecting disruption scenarios and identifying critical nodes (or
Stochastic 2 Goldbeck et al. (2020), Pariazar et al. combinations of nodes), the failure of which would lead to SC discon
Optimization (2017) tinuities and operational collapse (Zeng and Xiao, 2014; Tang et al.,
Systems Dynamics 2 Bueno-Solano and Cedillo-Campos (2014), 2016; Deng et al., 2019; Pavlov et al., 2020). Another important appli
Ghadge et al. (2013),
cation area consists of measuring SC robustness and resilience under
4
Fig. 3. Ripple-effect research methodologies.
disruption propagation and structural dynamics (Han and Shin, 2016; decision-making support on safety stock management, reconfiguration
Sokolov et al., 2016; Hosseini & Ivanov, 2019; Li and Zobel, 2020). of production and inventory plans after disruptions, and recovery
Along with the stress-testing of existing SC designs, the network level scheduling (Ivanov et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2020; Goldbeck et al.,
analyses suggest directions to enhance the resilience, e.g., through 2020). As the most desirable outcome, process level analysis seeks to
supplier diversification (Lei et al., 2020). Occasionally, the issues identify and test resilient SC designs to sustain disruptions, which range
beyond mere economic performance such as sustainability have been from optimistic and pessimistic scenarios (Ivanov et al., 2014a),
examined (Levner and Ptuskin, 2018). Moreover, the macro problems of probability-based disruptions (Pariazar et al., 2017) to worst-case sce
SC economies, such as supplier bankruptcies (Mizgier et al., 2013) and narios in robust optimization (Zhao and Freeman, 2019; Özçelik et al.,
retail dynamics (Osadchiy et al., 2016) have been studied. With the use 2020). In some settings, the authors solve inverse problems and search
of Bayesian networks, the studies allow us to model dependencies and for the elements in SC structures that should be strengthened to with
inter-dependencies in supply networks; moreover, the robustness and stand disruption propagation (Liberatore et al., 2012; Pavlov et al.,
resilience analyses, with consideration of both vulnerabilities and re 2013). Some extensions and adjustments of these models can be seen to
covery, thus become possible (Garvey et al., 2015; Ojha et al., 2018; Cao include recovery costs (Ivanov et al., 2016) and sustainability issues
et al., 2019). An integration of Markov chains and Bayesian networks (Pavlov et al., 2019).
enables an additional and valuable contribution, i.e., to model the
node’s behaviors along with the overall network dynamics (Hosseini 3.2.3. Control level
et al., 2019a,b). The control level studies are distinctively characterized by the in
clusion of details about inventory control and production-ordering
3.2.2. Process level policies in the analysis. At this level, simulation methods are the most
Compared to the network level, the studies at the process level are dominant. They facilitate the analysis of dynamic SC behaviors and time
positioned from a more specific perspective. These studies build upon dependencies in disruption propagation and responses. One interesting
parametrized structures to balance demands, processing capacities, and observation from these studies provides insight into “disruption tails.”
supply. Production-distribution planning in terms of flow optimization Several works (Ivanov, 2019; Dolgui et al., 2020) have observed that
under disruption propagation and structural dynamics is the focus of the non-coordinated ordering and production policies during a disruption
process level analysis. The analysis at the process level is mostly period may result in backlog and delayed orders, the accumulation of
grounded in mathematical optimization and system dynamics which causes post-disruption SC instability, resulting in further delivery
simulation. delays and non-recovery of SC performance. These residues have been
The process level studies help to analyze measures for disruption named “disruption tails.” The extant literature suggests that specific
propagation mitigation. The mathematical optimization studies are “revival” policies must be developed for the transition from the recovery
usually organized around an SC design, which may vary structurally and to disruption-free operation mode to avoid these “disruption tails.”
parametrically over time, and optimize flow reconfigurations under Interestingly, the first research conducted on the impacts of the
disruption propagation. For example, Bueno-Solano and Cedillo-Campos COVID-19 pandemic on SCs has utilized the simulation methodology,
(2014) show that protective measures against the ripple effect can revealing several unique features which make the pandemic a specific
drastically increase the inventory levels in an SC. Garvey and Carnovale and very severe risk type for SCs (Ivanov, 2020a).
(2020) argue that “managers should focus more of their attention on
control or mitigation of exogenous events […] and spend less of an effort 4. Directions for managerial applications and future research in
and resources on mitigating the propagation of exogenous risk …” pandemic settings
Ghadge et al. (2013) show how systems dynamics simulation can help in
the prediction of potential failure points in the SC, along with the overall COVID-19 pandemic has been the strongest test to resilience of SCs. It
impact of the ripple effect on performance. Although details differ across has also been the test for SC resilience theory. Have the established SC
studies, most of them share a common set of outcomes and managerial resilience measures, e.g., (i) redundancies such as risk mitigation in
insights, such as joint optimization of SC capacities and recovery capa ventories, subcontracting capacities, backup sup-ply and transportation
bilities for new and existing SCs; trade-offs between investments in infrastructures, (ii) data-driven, real-time monitoring and visibility
increased recovery capability and redundant capacity provision; systems, and (iii) contingent recovery plans helped the companies? Does
5
Table 2
Operational Research studies on the disruption propagations in the SCs.
Authors and Title Journal Central Focus Method(s) Outcomes & Managerial Analysis
publication year Insight(s) level
Basole, R.C. and Supply Network Structure, Decision Sciences Network tendency toward Graph theory; Significant association N
Bellamy, M.A. Visibility, and Risk disruption propagation Complexity theory between network structure
(2014) Diffusion: A and risk propagation; small-
Computational Approach world supply network
topologies consistently
outperform supply
networks with scale-free
characteristics
Blackhurst, J., Supply chain vulnerability Journal of Visualization and mapping Petri net and Understand potential N
Rungtusanatham, assessment: A network Purchasing and of disruption propagation Triangularization weaknesses in SC design
M.J., Scheibe, K., based visualization and Supply Clustering Algorithm while taking into account
Ambulkar, S. (2018) clustering analysis Management structure, connectivity, and
approach dependence within the SC
Bueno-Solano, A., Dynamic impact on global Transportation Understanding disruption System Dynamics Measures for disruption P
Cedillo-Campos, M. supply chains performance Research Part E: propagation through the SC simulation propagation can drastically
G. (2014). of disruptions propagation Logistics and to ensure security and increase inventory levels in
produced by terrorist acts Transportation efficient movement of goods the SC
Review
Cao, S., Bryceson, K., An Ontology-based Industrial To quantitatively assess the Ontology-based Supply discontinuity, N
Hine, D. (2019). Bayesian network Management and impact of dynamic risk Bayesian network product inconsistency, and/
modeling for supply chain Data Systems propagation in fresh product or delivery delay
risk propagation SCs originating from the ripple
effect
Deng, X., Yang, X., Risk propagation Computers and Identify dimensions of risk Tropos Goal-Risk Three-dimension model to N
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Lu, mechanisms and risk Industrial propagation SCs with framework control the ripple effect
Z. (2019). management strategies for Engineering perishable products (paths of risk propagation,
a sustainable perishable dependencies between
products supply chain. nodes, modes of risk
propagation); sustainability
issues connected to ripple
effect
Dolgui A., Ivanov D., Does the ripple effect International To identify relations Discrete-event The ripple effect can be a C
Rozhkov M. (2020). influence the bullwhip Journal of between the bullwhip effect simulation bullwhip-effect driver,
effect? An integrated Production and ripple effect while the latter can be
analysis of structural and Research launched by a severe
operational dynamics in disruption even in
the supply chain downstream direction;
backlog accumulation over
disruption time is the major
influencer of the ripple
effect on SC performance;
SC visibility and
information coordination is
the key capability to cope
with the ripple effect.
Garvey, M.D., The Rippled Newsvendor: International Inventory control policies Bayesian Network Reliability control of P
Carnovale, S. A New Inventory Journal of with ripple effect simulation inventory policies;
(2020) Framework for Modeling Production considerations managers should focus
Supply Chain Risk Severity Economics more attention on control
In The Presence of Risk or mitigation of exogenous
Propagation events that directly impact
their own firm, while
spending less effort and
resources on mitigating the
propagation of exogenous
risk from a supplier to the
exogenous risk of the firm
itself.
Garvey, M.D., An analytical framework European Journal Inter-dependencies among Bayesian Network Measuring disruption N
Carnovale, S., for supply network risk of Operational different risks, as well as the simulation propagation in the SC to
Yeniyurt, S. propagation: A Bayesian Research idiosyncrasies of SC analyze network
network approach structures vulnerability to ripple effect
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., A systems thinking Supply Chain Prediction of potential System Dynamics Prediction of potential P
Chester, M., & approach for modeling Management: An failure points in an SC and simulation failure points in the SC
Kalawsky, R. supply chain risk International overall impact of failure risks along with overall impact of
(2013). propagation Journal on performance ripple effect on
performance
Goldbeck, N., Optimal supply chain Transportation Resilient SC designs with Scenario tree Joint optimization of SC P
Angeloudis, P., resilience with Research Part E: considerations of trade-offs generation method for capacities and recovery
Ochieng, W. (2020) consideration of failure Logistics and between redundancy costs risk propagation capabilities for new and
propagation and repair Transportation and disruption-resistance modeling; existing SCs; trade-off
logistics Review Multi-stage stochastic between investments in
programming model increased recovery
(continued on next page)
6
Table 2 (continued )
capability and redundant

capacity provision;
decision-making support on
safety stock management,
reconfiguration of
production and inventory
plans after disruption, and
recovery scheduling
Han, J., Shin, K.S. Evaluation mechanism for International Structural robustness Reliability theory/ To verify whether the SC N
(2016) structural robustness of Journal of evaluation Probabilistic analysis design is robust to
supply chain considering Production disruption propagation
disruption propagation Research
Hosseini S., Ivanov D. Resilience Assessment of Annals of Measuring of the ripple Bayesian Network To identify the resilience N
(2019). Supply Networks with Operations effect with consideration of simulation level of their most
Disruption Propagation Research both disruption and recovery important suppliers; to
Considerations: A Bayesian stages identify disruption profiles
Network Approach in the supply base and
associated SC performance
degradation due to the
ripple effect
Hosseini S., Ivanov D., Ripple effect modeling of International Measuring of the ripple Discrete-Time Markov A metric that quantifies the N
Dolgui A. (2019). supplier disruption: Journal of effect with consideration of Chain (DTMC) and a ripple effect of supplier
Integrated Markov Chain Production state changes within Dynamic Bayesian disruption on
and Dynamic Bayesian Research individual SC nodes Network (DBN) manufacturers in terms of
Network Approach total expected utility and
service level; uncovering
latent high-risk paths in the
SC and prioritizing
contingency and recovery
policies
Ivanov D. (2019) Disruption tails and revival Computers and Production-ordering Discrete-event Non-coordinated ordering C
policies: A simulation Industrial behavior in an FMCG SC simulation and production policies
analysis of supply chain Engineering with disruption risks during during the disruption
design and production- recovery and post-disruption period may result in
ordering systems in the periods backlog and delayed orders,
recovery and post- the accumulation of which
disruption periods causes post-disruption SC
instability, resulting in
further delivery delays and
non-recovery of SC
performance;
Specific policies must be
developed for the transition
from recovery to
disruption-free operation
mode to avoid “disruption
tails”
Ivanov D. (2020) Predicting the impact of Transportation Predicting the impact of Discrete-event Timing of the closing and C
epidemic outbreaks on the Research Part E: epidemic outbreaks on simulation opening of facilities at
global supply chains: A Logistics and global SCs different echelons might
simulation-based analysis Transportation become a major factor that
on the example of Review determines the epidemic
coronavirus (COVID-19/ outbreak impact on SC
SARS-CoV-2) case performance. Lead-time,
speed of epidemic
propagation, and the
upstream and downstream
disruption duration in the
SC are other important
factors; results can be used
to predict the operative and
long-term impacts of
epidemic outbreaks on SCs,
to develop pandemic SC
plans, and to identify the
successful and problematic
elements of risk mitigation/
preparedness and recovery
policies in case of epidemic
outbreaks
Ivanov D., Sokolov B., Dual problem formulation International Identify an SC design Optimization: linear Building robust distribution P
Pavlov, A. (2013) and its application to Journal of structure that would satisfy Programming plans and interconnecting
optimal re-design of an Production some performance criteria decisions on distribution
integrated production- Research under different disruptions network design, planning,
distribution network with and sourcing.
7
structure dynamics and

ripple effect considerations
Ivanov, D. (2017) Simulation-based the International Performance impact of Discrete-event Advantages and costs of C
ripple effect modeling in Journal of disruption propagation in simulation backup SC designs for
the supply chain Production the SC mitigating ripple effect
Research
Ivanov, D., Sokolov B., A multi-structural European Journal SC multi-structural design Control theory SC designs are not restricted N
Kaeschel J. (2010) framework for adaptive of Operational and dynamic control of to the network of firms;
supply chain planning and Research macro states rather, they are multi-
operations control with structural systems spanning
structure dynamics organizational,
considerations informational, financial,
technological, process-
functional, and productive
structures
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, The ripple effect in supply International Conceptualization of the Control theory Disruption propagation N
B., & Dolgui, A. chains: Trade-off Journal of ripple effect concept in SCs; represents a specific type of
(2014b) ‘efficiency-flexibility- Production Dynamic view on SC ripple SC risks, i.e., the ripple
resilience’ in disruption Research effect effect
management
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, Optimal distribution (re) European Journal Reconfiguration of material Optimization: linear Considering different P
B., & Pavlov, A. planning in a centralized of Operational flows in an SC subject to programming and execution scenarios and
(2014a) multi-stage network under Research changes in network optimal control developing suggestions on
conditions of the ripple structures over many periods re-planning in the case of
effect and structure disruption propagation;
dynamics scenario-based risk
identification strategy and
operational distribution
planning
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, Integration of aggregate International Distribution and Optimization: linear Dynamic, time-dependent P
B., Hartl, R., Dolgui, distribution and dynamic Journal of transportation capacity programming and issues of the ripple effect
A., Pavlov, A., transportation planning in Production disruptions and the ripple optimal control
Solovyeva, I. (2015) a supply chain with Research effect
capacity disruptions and
ripple effect considerations
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, Disruption-driven supply Transportation Impact of disruption Optimization: linear A model to analyze P
B., Pavlov, A., chain (re)-planning and Research Part E: durations on the ripple effect programming and proactive SC structures,
Dolgui, A., & performance impact Logistics and and SC performance with optimal control compute recovery policies,
Pavlov, D. (2016) assessment with Transportation consideration of recovery and to re-direct material
consideration of pro-active Review costs flows to mitigate the ripple
and recovery policies effect; a method to compare
SC design resistance to the
ripple effect; suggesting
rules to recover and
reallocate resources and
flows after a disruption
Lei, Z., Lim, MK., Cui Modeling of risk International Mechanisms of risk Susceptible- Global supplier N
L. & Y. Wang (2020) transmission and control Journal of transmission in global SCs infectious-susceptible diversification and risk
strategy in the Production (SIS) model; control are crucial
transnational supply Research. complexity theory management activities to
chain. mitigate the ripple effect
Levner E., Ptuskin A. Entropy-based model for International Impact of environmental Complexity theory; Assessing the economic loss N
(2018) the ripple effect: managing Journal of risks on the ripple effect entropy analysis caused by the ripple effect
environmental risks in Production due to environmental risks
supply chains Research
Li, Y., Zobel, C. W. Exploring Supply Chain International Impact of the ripple effect on Graph theory; Network type has more N
(2020). Network Resilience in the Journal of SC resilience simulation influence on resistance to
Presence of the Ripple Production the ripple effect from a
Effect Economics short-term perspective;
from a long-term
perspective, it is more
advantageous to enhance
node risk capacity as
adjusted to the structure;
increasing robustness may
lead to prolonged recovery
time
Li, Y., Zobel, C. W., Network Characteristics International Impact of network Graph theory Metrics to analyze impact of N
Seref, O., and and Supply Chain Journal of characteristics on SC the ripple effect on SC
Chatfield, D. C. Resilience under Production resilience with disruption resilience; recovery time is
(2019) Conditions of Risk Economics propagation considerations primarily determined by
Propagation the disruption process, and
significantly less so by the
network structure
Omega P
8
Liberatore F, Scaparra Hedging against How to fortify SC facilities to Optimization: mixed- Identification of facilities to
M.P., Daskin M.S. disruptions with ripple hedge against the ripple integer programming be fortified to mitigate the
(2012). effects in location analysis effect ripple effect
Lu, M., Ran, L., Shen, Reliable facility location Manufacturing & Worst-case analysis of Robust optimization Reliable SC design with cost P
Z.-J.M. (2015) design under uncertain Service Operations reliable facility location minimization for some
correlated disruptions Management problems with consideration given disruption
of correlated disruptions probabilities of correlated
events
Mizgier, KJ, SM Modeling defaults of International Modeling defaults of Agent-based Should a company be N
Wagner, JA Holyst companies in multi-stage Journal of companies caused by simulation unable to quickly adapt to
(2013) supply chain networks Production structural dynamics the changing environment,
Economics it might be exposed to the
risk of the collective
defaults of suppliers, which
can give rise to disruptions
and delays in production.
Ojha, R., Ghadge, A., Bayesian network International Analysis of SC exposure to Bayesian Network Ripple effect quantification N
Tiwari M.K. & U. S. modeling for supply chain Journal of the ripple effect risk simulation by fragility, service level,
Bititci (2018) risk propagation Production inventory cost, and lost
Research sales
Osadchiy, N., Gaur, Systematic risk in supply Management Mapping supply networks of Statistical analysis To identify mechanisms N
V., Seshadri, S. chain networks Science industries and firms to that can affect the
(2016) investigate how the SC correlation between sales
structure mediates the effect levels and SC states; effects
of economy on industry or of risk propagation on
firm sales. production decisions,
aggregation of orders from
multiple customers in an
SC, and aggregation of
orders over time.
Özçelik, G., Ö. F. Robust optimization for International Ripple effect in reverse SC Robust optimization Method to proactively P
Yılmaz & F. B. Yeni ripple effect on reverse Journal of increase SC design
(2020) supply chain: an industrial Production robustness against the
case study Research ripple effect with
consideration of reverse
network
Pariazar, M., Root, S., Supply chain design Computers and Impact of correlated Stochastic Correlated supplier failures P
Sir, M.Y. (2017). considering correlated Industrial disruptions on SC design programming; Monte- increase total cost and
failures and inspection in Engineering Carlo simulation influence SC design
pharmaceutical and food
supply chains
Pavlov A., Ivanov D., Optimization of network Annals of Search for an optimal SC Optimization: linear To identify balanced levels P
Pavlov D., Slinko A. redundancy and Operations design with intensities of programming of capacity utilization and
(2019) contingency planning in Research processing policies at nodes production rates at different
sustainable and resilient and arcs subject to multi- firms in the SC to achieve
supply chain resource period changes in network maximum performance.
management under structures and budget
conditions of structural restrictions
dynamics
Pavlov A., Ivanov D., Integrated detection of Annals of Identification of disruption Reliability theory A methodology to identify N
Werner F., Dolgui disruption scenarios, the Operations scenarios of different the most severe disruption
A., Sokolov B. ripple effect dispersal and Research severity and the resulting scenarios, respective ripple
(2020). recovery paths in supply ripple effects effects, and optimal
chains recovery paths
Sinha, P., Kumar, S., Measuring and Mitigating European Journal Impact of demand variation Graph theory SC reconfiguration P
Prakash S. (2019) the Effects of Cost of Operational propagation on SC strategies to reduce the
Disturbance Propagation Research performance negative impact of
in Multi-Echelon Apparel disturbance propagation
Supply Chains
Sokolov, B., Ivanov, Structural quantification International Analysis of different Graph theory, MCDM Interrelations between N
D., Dolgui A., of the ripple effect in the Journal of performance indicators in network robustness,
Pavlov A. (2016). supply chain Production light of uncertainty for SCs centralization, and
Research with ripple effects flexibility
Tang, L., K. Jing, J. Complex interdependent Physica A Robustness of cyber-physical Reliability theory Helps to identify critical N
He, H.E. Stanley supply chain networks: SC with disruption nodes, the removal of which
(2016) Cascading failure and propagation considerations would lead to network
robustness in material and information discontinuity, or even
flows collapse
Zeng, Y., & Xiao, R. Modeling of cluster supply International Analysis and mitigation of Complexity theory; To analyze and predict N
(2014). network with cascading Journal of SC vulnerability in the entropy analysis dynamic SC behaviors
failure spread and its Production presence of disruption caused by vulnerabilities
vulnerability analysis Research propagation during the process of failure
spreading
Zhao M., Freeman, N. Robust Sourcing from Distributionally P
K. (2019) Suppliers under robust model
9
Ambiguously Correlated Production and Sourcing policies under Profit maximization for
Major Disruption Risks Operations conditions of ambiguously scenarios with worst-case
Management correlated disruptions disruption distribution.
the SC resilience theory provide a sufficient conceptual foundation,

Table 3
principles and methods to help firms to survive and recover through the
Outcomes and managerial insights from OR contributions to the ripple effect and
pandemic times?
structural dynamics.
SC resilience theory has been developed in response to more and
Level of OR Methods Outcomes Managerial Insights more frequent natural and man-made disasters early in the first decade
Analysis
of 2000s (Blackhurst et al., 2005; Peck, 2005; Sheffi and Rice, 2005).
Network Graph Theory • Associations between • Identification of These events have been considered as severe disruption risks in contrast
Level Complexity network structures and disruption
to more “light” operational risks (examples). Indeed, disruption risks
Theory risk propagation; propagation
Entropy • Analysis of critical scenarios of such as tsunamis, fires, and strikes may have high impact on SC opera
Petri Nets network elements different severity tions and performance. These disruptions share a common set of attri
Bayesian leading to supply chain • Stress-testing of SC butes, i.e., discrete-event orientation (i.e., disruptions as singular or
Networks discontinuities and designs combined events), single feedback control (i.e., normal → disruption →
Markov Chains collapses through • Propensity of
Reliability cascading failure specific SC designs
return-to-normal cycle), and finite-dimensional view on economic per
Theory/ effects; to disruption risk formance within a fixed time horizon as the major resilience assessment
Statistical • Modeling of propagation criterion.
Analysis interdependencies in • Identification of The pandemic setting is different. First, it is characterized by a very
SCs; critical suppliers
long-term existence of disruption and its unpredictable scaling. Thus far,
• State dynamics within and facilities for
SC nodes; maintaining SC SC resilience theory has not studied such settings. Second, we have
• Assessment of SC operations simultaneous disruption and epidemic outbreak propagations which is a
robustness and • Selection and novel timing setting with simultaneous and/or sequential openings and
resilience to proactive closures of suppliers, facilities and markets. Third, one specifics of the
disruptions with enhancements of SC
considerations of designs to sustain
pandemic setting are simultaneous severe disruptions in supply, de
ripple effect certain levels of mand, and logistics infrastructure leading to a novel complex setting
disruption with both forward and backward disruption propagations (i.e., forward
propagation and and reverse ripple effects).
structural dynamics
In this section, we focus on the articulation of state-of-the-art
• Adaptation of SC
designs according knowledge in OR about disruption propagation and structural dy
to environmental namics for a pandemic context. In particular, we extrapolate the out
changes comes and managerial insights revealed in Section 3 on the COVID-19
Process Stochastic • Optimal • Stress-testing of SC pandemic and elaborate on future research directions (Fig. 4 and
Level Optimization reconfigurations of production-
Robust material flows distribution plans
Table 4).
Optimization according to disruption within differently Our analyses of outcomes in both managerial and theoretical do
Linear/Mixed- propagation scenarios disrupted network mains in Fig. 4 and Table 4 are structured into five stages (i.e., Antici
Integer • Impacts of ripple effect designs pation; Early Detection; Containment; Control and Mitigation; and
Programming and structural • Analysis of
Elimination) following the WHO classification (WHO, 2018).
dynamics on service contingency-
level and costs preparedness plans
• Optimal re-allocation • Recovery plan
4.1. Anticipation and early detection
of supply and demand selection
under conditions of
disruption propagation The pandemic cycle usually begins with the anticipation and early
and structural detection stage. At this stage, SCs should be aware of and thus enable
dynamics preparedness measures. OR methods can help in a number of areas, such
Control Optimal • Impacts of disruption • Building resilient
Level Control propagation on service SCs for new, post-
as how to identify critical scenarios of disruption propagation according
Systems level, inventory levels, pandemic business to epidemic outbreak dynamics and forecast the impact of possible
Dynamics and costs models propagating disruption on SC performance (Mizgier et al., 2013; Basole
Agent-Based • Time-dependent effect • Analysis of and Bellamy, 2014; Li et al., 2019; Garvey et al., 2015; Ojha et al., 2018;
Simulation of disruption disruption
Cao et al., 2019). Moreover, quantitative theories can be efficiently used
Discrete-Event propagation on SC propagation in
Simulation behaviors and dynamics with to predict the time periods during which SCs can sustain disruption
performance in consideration of propagation and survive despite discontinuities, identify critical sup
dynamics production and pliers and facilities for maintaining SC operations, and select and fortify
• Individual behavior of inventory control SC designs to sustain epidemic outbreaks (Blackhurst et al., 2018; Zeng
firms in SCs policies
• Simulation of
and Xiao, 2014; Tang et al., 2016; Deng et al., 2019; Pavlov et al., 2020).
operation policies Overall, the decision on the anticipation and early detection stage aim
during disruption, toward the implementation of “Design-for-Resilience” network struc
in transition to tures (Yildiz et al., 2016).
recovery, and in
Nonetheless, further research directions arise for communities in the
post-recovery
periods midst of pandemic settings. There are crucial opportunities to develop
theories and models for disruption propagation analysis in supply net
works with specific consideration of pandemics to visualize the ripple
10
Fig. 4. Summary of theoretical and managerial insights.
effect and their structural dynamics, and to extend toward a multi- performance (Ivanov et al., 2016; Pariazar et al., 2017; Goldbeck et al.
categorical analysis spanning dimensions of resilience and sustainabil 2020). It is now highly relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic since SCs are
ity. Moreover, researchers can examine new analysis categories, such as misbalanced, which makes it difficult to decide at which level of ca
network viability (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020; Ivanov, 2020a,b). It is also pacity firms should start and then scale during a subsequent recovery.
important to investigate data analytics and digital technology capabil The OR models can help identify the optimal material flows in a
ities for early detection of disruption propagation following epidemic multi-period mode during which SC structures change throughout these
outbreaks. periods (Ivanov et al., 2014a; Lücker et al. 2017, 2019; Pavlov et al.,
2019). This is highly relevant to the modeling of SC flows amid a
4.2. Containment pandemic and throughout recovery. Another relevant issue is the
consideration of backlog accumulations over the disruption time, which
At the containment stage, the environment becomes increasingly can become a major driver of disruption propagation during production
vulnerable following periods of quarantine, interruption of logistics due and logistics ramp-up activities (Ivanov and Rozhkov, 2020). At the
to variations in containment timing, and scaling in different geograph control and mitigation stage, the role of digital twins is increasing since
ical areas, as well as certain lockdowns. At this stage, SCs are experi SC visibility and information coordination are the key capabilities for
encing initial misbalances in supply and demand due to longer lead- coping with the ripple effect (Sokolov et al. 2020). OR methods can help
times, demand drops, and supply unavailability due to facility clo analyze the impacts of disruption propagation on dynamics with adap
sures. OR methods can support SC managers at this stage by stress- tations for ordering, production, and inventory control policies, and to
testing the existing and alternative SC configurations and production- simulate operations policies amid a pandemic (Zeng et al. 2014, Spiegler
distribution plans for some scenarios of structural dynamics in antici and Naim, 2017, Schmitt et al., 2017; Ivanov and Rozhkov, 2020).
pation of, or as a reaction to, facility and market closure due to quar Moreover, OR theories can be used to explore reallocations of supply and
antines and lockdowns (Hosseini & Ivanov, 2019; Tan et al., 2019; Li demand during a pandemic, given simultaneous upstream and market
and Zobel, 2020; Sawik, 2020). OR methods can also help optimize disruptions (Gupta et al., 2020). In addition, OR methods can be applied
contingency-preparedness plans for their efficient and timely deploy to propose recovery plans along with an analysis of timing and scaling of
ment under different scenarios of epidemic propagation (Liberatore facility/market closures and openings in different geographical regions
et al., 2012, Ghadge et al., 2013, Ivanov et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2020; (Tang and Musa 2011, Snyder et al., 2016;.
Pavlov et al., 2019; Goldbeck et al., 2020). As for future research, we point to opportunities for substantial
The new research opportunities for communities during the contributions to develop and examine digital SC twins to map the
containment pandemic stage are promising. For example, there is an network elements and adapt SCs according to disruption propagation
urgent need to examine new understandings, theories, and novel ap and structural dynamics. There is also promising research through
proaches concerning SC preparedness and disruption mitigation during exploring the role of timing and scaling of production and logistics
the beginning of epidemic outbreaks. This can help articulate the ante ramp-ups after quarantine and lockdown eliminations.
cedents, drivers, and economic and social performance implications of
simultaneous disruption and epidemic propagation. One specific and 4.4. Elimination or eradication
underexplored area is the re-designing of SCs to facilitate production
switches to unusual products (e.g., mask production at car Exiting a pandemic can be even more challenging than being inside
manufacturing plants). one. During the elimination stage, SCs must be recovered and adapted to
new post-pandemic realities. OR methods can help incorporate post-
4.3. Control and mitigation pandemic environments in the re-designing of the SCs and supplier
base (Yoon et al., 2018; Snoeck et al., 2019). They can also be of value to
Amid the control and mitigation stage, SCs must adapt to a “new examine the existing and potential SC configurations under
normal” and start preparing for recovery. For example, OR models can post-pandemic conditions within markets and the supply base.
help to identify balanced levels of capacity utilization and production Furthermore, modeling techniques can be used to analyze the “disrup
rates at different firms in the SC to achieve maximum possible tion tails” and long-term stabilization of production-inventory systems
11
Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Suggestions for future research and applications in pandemic settings. Pandemic stages Suggestions for future research and applications of OR methods
Pandemic stages Suggestions for future research and applications of OR methods in pandemic settings
in pandemic settings
conditions in the supply structural changes in supply
Managerial applications Future research directions base and markets and demand after a
Anticipation • Identify critical scenarios of • Develop theories and • Analyze the “disruption pandemic (e.g., supplier
and early disruption propagation models for disruption tails” and long-term stabili bankruptcies and demand
detection according to epidemic propagation analysis in zation of production- drops/shifts)
outbreak dynamics supply networks with inventory systems • Explore the concept of SC
• Forecast the impact of specific consideration of viability as long-term
possible propagating pandemics maintenance of survivabil
disruptions on SC • Visualize the ripple effect ity under different and ever-
performance and structural dynamics changing environmental
• Predict the time periods • Multi-categorical analysis conditions
during which SCs can spanning resilience and
sustain disruption sustainability
propagation and survive • Examine new analysis (Ivanov 2019; Paul et al. 2018, 2019; Ivanov and Rozhkov, 2020;
despite discontinuities categories such as network Macdonald et al., 2018).
• Identify critical suppliers viability
The elimination stage contains a variety of novel research problem
and facilities for • Investigate data analytics
maintaining SC operations and digital technologies to settings. For example, there is a research gap in how to establish the
• Implement “Design for earlier detect the disruption optimal scaling and timing of production and logistics ramp-ups during
Resilience” network propagation following the “exit” after lockdown. It is also timely and crucial to examine SC re-
structures epidemic outbreaks design methods for several structural changes in supply and demand in
• Select and fortify SC designs
to sustain epidemic
the wake of a pandemic (e.g., supplier bankruptcies, shifts and drops in
outbreaks demand). Finally, we point to the need to explore the concept of SC
Containment • Stress-testing of SC • Examine new viability as a means for the long-term maintenance of survivability
configurations and understanding, theories, under different and ever-changing environmental conditions.
production-distribution and novel approaches
plans for some scenarios of concerning SC preparedness
structural dynamics in and disruption mitigation 5. Some interesting cross-stage future research directions
anticipation of facility/ during the beginning of
market closure due to epidemic outbreaks Along with the research directions at each of the pandemic stages
quarantines • Articulate antecedents,
• Time-to Survive/Time-to drivers, and economic and
outlined above, there are some cross-stage areas which can become
Recover analysis social performance promising research avenues. These directions have been discussed dur
• Optimize contingency- implications of ing our INFORMS webinar “Ripple Effects in Supply Chains at different
preparedness plans for simultaneous disruption Pandemic Stages” on May 14, 2020. We thank the audience for inter
deployment under different and epidemic propagation
esting and relevant questions some of which are addressed in this
scenarios of epidemic
propagation section.
Control and • Analyze the impacts of • Develop and test new
mitigation disruption propagation in theories, models, and
dynamics with adaptations resilience mechanisms for 5.1. Efficiency vs. resilience: toward adaptable redundancy
of ordering, production, control and mitigation of
and inventory control disruption propagation in
Resilience theory in OR is predominantly organized around three
policies SCs with specific
• Simulate and articulate consideration of pandemic major assets (Hosseini et al., 2019b), i.e.,
operation policies amid the features, such as:
pandemic - long-term disruption (i) redundancies such as risk mitigation inventories, subcontracting
• Explore reallocations of existence and its capacities, backup supply and transportation infrastructures,
supply and demand during unpredictable scaling;
the pandemic given - simultaneous disruption
(ii) data-driven, real-time monitoring and visibility systems, and
simultaneous disruptions in propagation and epidemic (iii) contingent recovery plans.
upstream and markets outbreak propagation;
• Re-design SCs for - simultaneous severe Obviously, these resilience assets are costly. One of the fundamental
production shifts to unusual disruptions in supply,
questions in the context of ripple effects under pandemic conditions
products (e.g., mask demand, and logistics
production at car infrastructure stems from the trade-offs between efficiency and resilience. A manager
manufacturing facility) • Develop and examine could ask if it is really needed to invest in resilience when such a global
• Propose recovery plan digital SC twins to map pandemic is a one-in-a-century event. Perhaps it is better to lose some
selection with analysis of network elements and adapt revenues during a pandemic than to invest every year in resilience?
timing and scaling of the SC according to
facility/market closures disruption propagation and
Undoubtedly, the SC strategies such as lean, agile, and leagile have a
and openings in different structural dynamics great impact on the ripple effects. Which strategy could decrease the
geographical regions • Explore the role of timing negative impact of the ripple effect, particularly in case of the COVID-
and scaling the production 19?
and logistics ramp-ups after
It is frequently claimed that lean SC principles (e.g., Just-in-Time
quarantine and lockdown
eliminations (JIT), low inventory levels or single sourcing) might be the triggers of
Elimination • Incorporate post-pandemic • Find optimal scaling and ripple effect during a pandemic. Other trigger is seen in globalization of
environments in the re- timing of production and SCs and utilizing the efficiency of global sourcing and production. This
designing of SCs logistics ramp-ups during might be true in certain settings; however this should not be considered
• Examine the existing and the “exit” after lockdowns
potential SC configurations • Examine SC re-design
as an automatic rule. JIT inventory systems are not necessarily less
under post-pandemic methods for severe resilient as high-level inventory systems. Important is the locations of
inventory which needs to be accessible by in- and outbound logistics.
The same general rule – ability to network the SC redundancy assets
12
holds true for other resilience capabilities such capacity flexibility or with correlated and mutually triggered fluctuations; however, they
back-up suppliers. Redundancy assets make sense only if they can be originate differently. Bullwhip effect is triggered by a small demand
used to adapt the SC quickly. Equally, globalization is frequently seen as fluctuation while ripple effect is triggered by a severe disruption.
a strong driver of the ripple effects. It is argued that localization might be COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on unforeseen interrelations of both
a panacea to increase resilience of future SCs. However, lockdowns in effects. First, the panic purchasing has been observed in many regions as
Europe and USA in spring 2020 clearly showed examples that even the a consequence of a pandemic announcement. Simultaneously, supply
local SCs can be broken due to quarantine-driven capacity shutdowns. has been disrupted. Second, in many regions it came to simultaneous or
At the same time, global SC footprints played a positive role for some subsequent demand disruption. This novel context raises a number of
SCs. For example, automotive companies with factories in Asia, Europe research questions on interrelations of ripple and bullwhip, and on
and USA were able to maintain at least a part of their operations and interrelation of operations and disruption risks in general.
sales due to sequential timing of the pandemic propagation (e.g., while
the European factories and market were shutdown end of March 2020, 5.3. SC viability, intertwined networks and structural dynamics
the Chinese facilities and market were gradually re-opening around this
time). Under pandemic settings, many companies have experienced critical
In this context, we see a need for research in adaptable redundancy disruptions in their operations leading to the tasks of maintaining the
using leagility and resilience principles. For example, Ivanov and Dolgui existence of SCs as such. In such unique context, the issues of viability
(2019) proposed an LCN (low-certainty-need) SC framework which were brought in the forefront of consideration. The views about
conceptually defines the notion of resileanness (i.e., resilient and lean). pandemic impacts on SCs are diverse. On one hand, the pandemic is seen
The traditional way of designing resilient SCs and operations is to pre as one-in-a-century event, and a return to normal design-for-efficiency
dict disruptions and include the perceived uncertainties in network with some elements of resilience will happen when the pandemic is
design and planning (i.e., high need for certainty in SC operations) at the over. This optimistic scenario might be true. In another, pessimistic
costs of efficiency. The LCN framework assumes that SCs are inherently scenario the sentiment is that deep demand and supply uncertainty can
operating at very high level of uncertainty which is very difficult to exist for a longer time, and even become a “new normal”. SC managers
predict. Thus far, it rather looks at efficient adaptable SC designs and should take this into account and re-build the SCs, e.g., following the
operations which allow for situational reconfigurations in response to Viable Supply Chain (VSC) model (Ivanov 2020b). The principal ideas of
external changes regardless of their nature (i.e., low need for certainty). the VSC model are adaptable structural SC designs for situational
With that, the LCN framework constitutes a novel approach to managing supply-demand allocations and, most importantly, establishment and
SC resilience in an efficient manner. The main idea is to actively control of adaptive mechanisms for transitions between the structural
maintain efficient and agile “ready-to-change” SC states in dynamics designs. The VSC model can help firms in guiding their decisions on
rather than pre-designing some static and costly “ready-to-absorb”, recovery and re-building of their SCs after global, long-term crises such
passive redundancies. as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Analysis of SC operations and performances in January–August 2020 Ripple effect analysis in the viability settings is an underexplored
shows that redundant resilience assets (i.e., risk mitigation inventories, area. Moreover, it has been observed that SCs are actually intersecting
subcontracting capacities, backup supply and transportation in with other SCs, i.e., intertwined supply networks exist (Ivanov and
frastructures) have not really helped firms since the disruption period Dolgui et al., 2020b). For example, a supplier in an automotive SC can be
was very long. In automotive industry, many processes are organized a producer of valves for a healthcare SC simultaneously playing the role
just-in-time and inventory was available for a period of about 30 days at of buyers and suppliers at the same time in different SCs. Ripple effect
maximum. Moreover, suppliers and factories have been located in analysis for intertwined supply networks is a promising research direc
different regions subject to different timing of shutdowns and lockdowns tion. In addition, ripple effect refers not only to organizational structures
(regardless of whether globally or locally organized). As such, even the of SCs (i.e., structure of firms). We can also observe intersections of
available inventory or backup capacities were not accessible for longer process, product, informational, technological, and financial structures
periods of time. (Queiroz et al., 2020). For example, automotive and perfume companies
More positive experiences have been done with agile capacities and changed their product and related technological structures by producing
data-driven, real-time monitoring and visibility systems. Agile capac ventilators and hand sanitizers instead of cars and luxury perfumes.
ities have enabled firms to re-purpose their SCs. Luxury goods manu Such a transformation leads to dynamics in supplier base, informational
facturers have completely transformed their operations to manufacture and financial structures. Ripple effect analysis in the context of
urgently needed items during the COVID-19 virus outbreak in March multi-structural dynamics represents a novel research array.
2020. LVMH, L’Oreal and Coty repurposed their perfume and hair gel
factories to producing hand sanitizers. Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Gucci 5.4. Note on the usage of SC resilience models for pandemic settings
and Prada altered their designer clothing factories in Italy to produce
masks, gloves and nonsurgical gowns. Similarly, many automotive gi Undoubtedly, the existing knowledge on SC disruption risk and
ants like Ford, Tesla, Suzuki, etc. shifted their production from cars to resilience will be the dominant perspective guiding researchers and in
ventilators and hospital beds by collaborating with local manufacturers. dustry leaders throughout the pandemic and subsequent recovery. That
Thus, adaptability and reconfigurability played a critical role in SCs, being said, there exists the danger of an incorrect usage of SC resilience
including rapid raw material sourcing, product design, development and models for pandemic settings. The optimization and simulation research
testing, and distribution. In addition, some companies resolved short community has developed a mature body of literature on coping with
ages of parts for life saving ventilators and masks by using additive different types of disruption risks. A pandemic is one specific type of
manufacturing. Moreover, data-driven, real-time monitoring and visi disruption risk with unique implications for SCs, which are not
bility technologies were of help for companies to map their SCs and encountered with other types of disruptions. In contrast to
utilize the data for decision-making support when preparing their re geographically-centered natural and industrial disasters with a singular
sponses to the COVID-19 pandemic settings. occurrence, a pandemic is not limited to a particular region or confined
to a particular time period (Ivanov and Das, 2020). Different SC com
5.2. Correlations of bullwhip and ripple effects ponents are thus affected sequentially or concurrently—manufacturing,
DCs, logistics, and markets can all become paralyzed within subsequent
Ripple effect and bullwhip effect have commonalities and differ or overlapping time frames. Pandemics cause long-term disruption with
ences. Both bullwhip and ripple effect belong to systemic risks dealing unpredictable scaling. Other specific issues include simultaneous
13
disruption propagation (i.e., the ripple effect) and epidemic outbreak • simultaneous disruption and epidemic outbreak propagation: this is
propagation, and simultaneous severe disruptions in supply, demand, a novel timing setting with simultaneous and/or sequential openings
and logistics infrastructure (Ivanov, 2020a). Under pandemic condi and closures of suppliers, facilities, and markets;
tions, it may be difficult to apply directly the most well-known SC • simultaneous severe disruptions in supply, demand, and logistics
resilience mechanisms, such as risk mitigation inventories, subcon infrastructure: this is a novel complex setting with both forward and
tracting capacities, or backup supply and transportation infrastructures. backward disruption propagation.
As such, studies on SC resilience should explicitly present
pandemic-specific settings to be classified as a contribution in a Future research can be advanced by investigating the role of digital
pandemic context Otherwise, each study on supply disruptions may be twins in mitigating the ripple effect, research on the ripple effect in the
adapted to the pandemic background, which would be fundamentally setting of SC viability, and intertwined supply networks. Moreover, the
problematic. ripple effect refers not only to organizational structures, but also the
intersection of process, product, informational, technological, and
6. Conclusions financial structures. As such, the research on the multi-structural ripple
effect is a promising and novel direction.
The COVID-19 pandemic unveils the fragility of SCs at an unforeseen We hope that the novel systematizations and categorizations pro
scale. Specifically, one dominant stressor to SCs amid a pandemic and posed in this study will be of value for researchers and practitioners alike
during post-pandemic recoveries arises from disruption propagations in guiding SCs through the pandemic and preparing them for future
through networks (i.e., the ripple effect) and the subsequent changes in recovery. Along with the constructed generalized perspectives, our
SC structures (i.e., structural dynamics). study can be of value for researchers and industry professionals to cope
This paper deduced managerial implications from the existing liter with the existing COVID-19 pandemic, aid them in recovery, and, most
ature on disruption propagation in SCs and revealed future research importantly, to create a valuable resource for future pandemics or
directions. We collated for the first time the existing knowledge on pandemic-like disruptions.
modeling the SC ripple effect and its structural dynamics. We believe
that such an overview would be useful for industry leaders and re Acknowledgments
searchers in shaping SC adaptations during and after a global pandemic.
On one hand, we collated the state-of-the-art in research on SC disrup The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable
tion propagation and identified a methodical taxonomy. On the other comments which helped to improve this paper immensely.
hand, we revealed and systemized managerial insights from a theory,
which can be used for COVID-19 recovery and for withstanding future Appendix 1. Journals
pandemics. These results can be used by both industry and researchers
to progress the decision-support systems guiding SCs amid the COVID- Annals of Operations Research.
19 pandemic and their subsequent recovery. Computers and Industrial Engineering.
The outcomes of our study show that methodical contributions and Decision Sciences.
the resulting managerial insights can be categorized into three levels, i. European Journal of Operational Research.
e., network, process, and control. Our analysis shows that adaptation Industrial Management and Data Systems.
capabilities play the most crucial role in managing the SCs under International Journal of Production Economics.
pandemic disruptions. Our findings depict how the existing OR methods International Journal of Production Research.
can help coping with the ripple effect at five pandemic stages (i.e., Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
Anticipation; Early Detection; Containment; Control and Mitigation; and Management Science.
Elimination) following the WHO classification. The outcomes and Manufacturing & Service Operations Management.
findings of our study can be used by industry and researchers alike to Omega.
progress the decision-support systems guiding SCs amid the COVID-19 Physica A.
pandemic and toward recovery. Production and Operations Management.
As with any study, there exists limitations. We have narrowed our Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
analysis of the disruption propagation literature to that which relates to Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
commercial SCs. Obviously a wide variety of knowledge in the area of
humanitarian logistics and SCs can enrich the findings of our study. We
References
also do not present ourselves to be encyclopedic, for we assume that
some relevant studies might have not been uncovered and thus remain Altay, N., Green, W.G., 2006. OR/MS research in disaster operations management. Eur.
outside of our review. In addition, we restricted ourselves to OR studies. J. Oper. Res. 175 (1), 475–493.
The analysis of the ripple effect would greatly benefit from empirical Basole, R.C., Bellamy, M.A., 2014. Supply network structure, visibility, and risk
diffusion: a computational approach. Decis. Sci. J. 45 (4), 1–49.
studies as well. Finally, we reviewed the literature published by May 15, Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C.W., Elkins, D., Handfield, R., 2005. An empirically derived
2020. In the meantime, several new studies on the ripple effect in SCs agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. Int. J. Prod.
have appeared (Hsieh and Chang, 2020, Hosseini and Ivanov, 2020, Lee Res. 43 (19), 4067–4081.
Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J., Scheibe, K., Ambulkar, S., 2018. Supply chain
et al., 2020, Lohmer et al., 2020, Singh et al., 2020) which confirms the
vulnerability assessment: a network based visualization and clustering analysis
strong and growing interest in this research area. approach. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24 (1), 21–30.
As for future research, we point toward numerous opportunities for Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W., Petersen, K.J., 2014. A contingent resource-
based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. J. Supply Chain Manag.
substantial contributions to develop and test new theories, models, and
50 (3), 55–73.
resilience mechanisms for the control and mitigation of disruption Bueno-Solano, A., Cedillo-Campos, M.G., 2014. Dynamic impact on global supply chains
propagation in SCs, with special consideration of pandemic features, performance of disruptions propagation produced by terrorist acts. Transport. Res. E
such as: Logist. Transport. Rev. 61, 1–12.
Cao, S., Bryceson, K., Hine, D., 2019. An Ontology-based Bayesian network modelling for
supply chain risk propagation. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 119 (8), 1691–1711.
• long-term existence of disruption and its unpredictable scaling: this Chatfield, D.C., Hayya, J.C., Cook, D.P., 2013. Stockout propagation and amplification in
setting is an understudied area in ripple effect research; supply chain inventory systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (5), 1491–1507.
Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S.K., Srivastava, R.K., Parveen, Z., 2016. Risk propagation and
its impact on performance in food processing supply chain: a fuzzy interpretive
structural modeling based approach. J. Model. Manag. 11 (2), 660–693.
14
Choi, T.Y., Rogers, D., Vakil, B., 2020. Coronavirus is a wake-up call for supply chain Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B. (Eds.), 2019. Handbook of Ripple Effects in the Supply
management. Harvard Business Review. March 27th. Chain. Springer, New York.
Choi, T.-M., 2020. Innovative “bring-service-near-your-home” operations under corona- Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Dolgui, A., 2014b. The ripple effect in supply chains: trade-off
virus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak: can logistics become the messiah? ‘efficiency-flexibility-resilience’ in disruption management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (7),
Transport. Res. Part E: Logistics and Transportation 140, 101961. 2154–2172.
Dasaklis, T.K., Pappis, C.P., Rachaniotis, N.P., 2012. Epidemics control and logistics Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Pavlov, A., 2014a. Optimal distribution (re)planning in a
operations: a review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (2), 393–410. centralized multi-stage network under conditions of the ripple effect and structure
Demirel, G., MacCarthy, B.L., Ritterskamp, D., Champneys, A., Gross, T., 2019. dynamics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237 (2), 758–770.
Identifying dynamical instabilities in supply networks using generalized modeling. Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Pavlov, A., Dolgui, A., Pavlov, D., 2016. Disruption-driven supply
J. Oper. Manag. 65 (2), 133–159. chain (re)-planning and performance impact assessment with consideration of pro-
Deng, X., Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Lu, Z., 2019. Risk propagation mechanisms and risk active and recovery policies. Transport. Res. Part E 90, 7–24.
management strategies for a sustainable perishable products supply chain. Comput. Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Hartl, R., Dolgui, A., Pavlov, A., Solovyeva, I., 2015. Integration
Ind. Eng. 135, 1175–1187. of aggregate distribution and dynamic transportation planning in a supply chain
Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Rozhkov, M., 2020. Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip with capacity disruptions and ripple effect considerations. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53 (23),
effect? An integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply 6963–6979.
chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5), 1285–1301. Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Pavlov, A., 2013. Dual problem formulation and its application
Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., 2018. Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis to optimal re-design of an integrated production-distribution network with structure
and recent literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1–2), 414–430. dynamics and ripple effect considerations. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (18), 5386–5403.
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Blome, C., 2019b. Swift trust and commitment: the missing links for Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Kaeschel, J., 2010. A multi-structural framework for adaptive
humanitarian supply chain coordination? Ann. Oper. Res. 283 (1–2), 159–177. supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2676-z. considerations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (2), 409–420, 2010.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., Foropon, C., Ivanov, D., 2020a. Predicting the impact of epidemic outbreaks on the global supply
2020. Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational chains: a simulation-based analysis on the example of coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-
flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. https://doi. CoV-2) case. Transport. Res. Part E 136, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820. tre.2020.101922.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Blome, C., Luo, Z., 2019a. Ivanov, D., 2020b. Viable Supply Chain Model: integrating agility, resilience and
Antecedents of resilient supply chains: an empirical study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. sustainability perspectives. Lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19
66 (1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2017.2723042. pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6.
Essuman, D., Boso, N., Annan, J., 2020. Operational resilience, disruption, and Ivanov, D., Das, A., 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) and supply chain
efficiency: conceptual and empirical analyses. Int. J. Prod. Econ. https://doi.org/ resilience: a research note. Int. J. Integrated Supply Manag. 13 (1), 90–102.
10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107762. Available online. Ivanov, D., Rozhkov, M., 2020. Coordination of production and ordering policies under
Fortune. https://fortune.com/2020/02/21/fortune-1000-coronavirus-china-supply-chai capacity disruption and product write-off risk: an analytical study with real-data
n-impact/, 2020–. (Accessed 10 March 2020). based simulations of a fast moving consumer goods company. Ann. Oper. Res. 291
Fosso Wamba, S., 2020. Humanitarian supply chain: a bibliometric analysis and future (1–2), 387–407.
research directions. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03594-9 Klibi, W., Martel, A., Guitouni, A., 2010. The design of robust value-creating supply chain
(Forthcoming). networks: a critical review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203 (2), 283–293.
Garvey, M.D., Carnovale, S., 2020. The rippled newsvendor: a new inventory framework Lei, Z., Lim, M.K., Cui, L., Wang, Y., 2020. Modelling of risk transmission and control
for modelling supply chain risk severity in the presence of risk propagation. Int. J. strategy in the transnational supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–20. https://doi.org/
Prod. Econ. (forthcoming). 10.1080/00207543.2019.1698782.
Garvey, M.D., Carnovale, S., Yeniyurt, S., 2015. An analytical framework for supply Levner, E., Ptuskin, A., 2018. Entropy-based model for the ripple effect: managing
network risk propagation: a Bayesian network approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 243 (2), environmental risks in supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (7), 2539–2551.
618–627. Li, Y., Zobel, C.W., 2020. Exploring supply chain network resilience in the presence of
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M., Kalawsky, R., 2013. A systems thinking approach for the ripple effect. Int. J. Prod. Econ. (forthcoming).
modelling supply chain risk propagation. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 18 (5), Li, Y., Zobel, C.W., Seref, O., Chatfield, D.C., 2019. Network characteristics and supply
523–538. chain resilience under conditions of risk propagation. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
Ghadge, A., Weiß, M., Caldwell, N.D., Wilding, R., 2019. Managing cyber risk in supply Liberatore, F., Scaparra, M.P., Daskin, M.S., 2012. Hedging against disruptions with
chains: a review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 25 (2), 223–240. ripple effects in location analysis. Omega 40, 21–30.
Golan, M.S., Jernegan, L.H., Linkov, I., 2020. Trends and Applications of Resilience Lohmer, J., Bugert, N., Lasch, R., 2020. Analysis of resilience strategies and ripple effect
Analytics in Supply Chain Modeling: Systematic Literature Review in the Context of in blockchain-coordinated supply chains: an agent-based simulation study. Int. J.
the COVID-19 Pandemic. Environment Systems and Decisions. https://doi.org/ Prod. Econ. 228, 107882.
10.1007/s10669-020-09777-w. Lu, M., Ran, L., Shen, Z.-J.M., 2015. Reliable facility location design under uncertain
Gupta, S., Starr, M., Zanjirani Farahani, R., Matinrad, N., 2016. Disaster management correlated disruptions. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 17 (4), 445–455.
from a POM perspective: mapping a new domain. Prod. Oper. Manag. 25 (10), Lee, B.W., Yoon, J., Lee, S.J., 2020. A ripple effect in prehospital stroke patient care. Int.
1611–1637. J. Prod. Res. in press.
Gupta, V., Ivanov, D., Choi, T.-M., 2020. Competitive pricing of substitute products Lücker, F., Seifert, R.W., Biçer, I., 2019. Roles of inventory and reserve capacity in
under supply disruption. Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102279. mitigating supply chain disruption risk. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (4), 1238–1249.
Haren, P., Simchi-Levi, D., 2020. How coronavirus could impact the global supply chain Macdonald, J.R., Zobel, C.W., Melnyk, S.A., Griffis, S.E., 2018. Supply chain risk and
by mid-march. Harward Business Review, February 28, 2020. https://hbr.org resilience: theory building through structured experiments and simulation. Int. J.
/2020/02/how-coronavirus-could-impact-the-global-supply-chain-by-mid-march? Prod. Res. 56 (12), 4337–4355.
ab=hero-subleft-1. (Accessed 10 March 2020). Mishra, D., Dwivedi, Y., Rana, N., Hassini, E., 2019. Evolution of supply chain ripple
Han, J., Shin, K.S., 2016. Evaluation mechanism for structural robustness of supply chain effect: a bibliometric and meta-analytic view of the constructs. Int. J. Prod. Res.
considering disruption propagation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1668073.
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., 2019. Resilience assessment of supply networks with disruption Mizgier, K.J., Jüttner, M.P., Wagner, S.M., 2013. Bottleneck identification in supply
propagation considerations: a bayesian network approach. Ann. Oper. Res. https:// chain networks. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (5), 1477–1490.
doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03350-8. Ni, J., 2020. How China Can Rebuild Global Supply Chain Resilience after COVID-19.
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., 2020. Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience and https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-and-global-supply-chai
ripple effect analysis: a Literature Review. Expert Syst. Appl. 161, 113649. ns/. (Accessed 4 April 2020).
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., 2019a. Ripple effect modeling of supplier disruption: Ojha, R., Ghadge, A., Tiwari, M.K., Bititci, U.S., 2018. Bayesian network modelling for
integrated Markov chain and dynamic bayesian network approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. supply chain risk propagation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (17), 5795–5819.
(in press). Osadchiy, N., Gaur, V., Seshadri, S., 2016. Systematic risk in supply chain networks.
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., 2019b. Review of quantitative methods for supply Manag. Sci. 62 (6), 1755–1777.
chain resilience analysis. Transport. Res. Part E 125, 285–307. ISM (2020). https Özçelik, G., Yılmaz, Ö.F., Yeni, F.B., 2020. Robust optimisation for ripple effect on
://weareism.org/coronavirus-ism.html. (Accessed 4 May 2020). reverse supply chain: an industrial case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. https://doi.org/
Hsieh, C.-C., Chang, H.-L., 2020. Sourcing with recycled materials: a contingent sourcing 10.1080/00207543.2020.1740348.
model with supply unavailability and setup time uncertainty for ripple effect Pariazar, M., Root, S., Sir, M.Y., 2017. Supply chain design considering correlated
mitigation. Int. J. Prod. Res. in press. failures and inspection in pharmaceutical and food supply chains. Comput. Ind. Eng.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., 2020. Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the 111, 123–138.
supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by Paul, S., Rahman, S., 2018. A quantitative and simulation model for managing sudden
COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (10), 2904–2915. supply delay with fuzzy demand and safety stock. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (13),
Ivanov, D., 2019. Disruption tails and revival policies: a simulation analysis of supply 4377–4395.
chain design and production-ordering systems in the recovery and post-disruption Paul, S., Sarker, R., Essam, D., Lee, P.T.-W., 2019. Managing sudden disturbances in a
periods. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 558–570. three-tier manufacturing supply chain: a mathematical modelling approach. Ann.
Ivanov, D., 2017. Simulation-based the ripple effect modelling in the supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Res. 280, 299–335.
Prod. Res. 55 (7), 2083–2101. Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Pavlov, D., Slinko, A., 2019. Optimization of network redundancy
Ivanov, D., 2018. Structural Dynamics and Resilience in Supply Chain Risk Management. and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource
Springer, New York.
15
management under conditions of structural dynamics. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi. Sinha, P., Kumar, S., Prakash, S., 2020. Measuring and mitigating the effects of cost
org/10.1007/s10479-019-03182-6. disturbance propagation in multi-echelon apparel supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Werner, F., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., 2020. Integrated detection of 282 (1), 148–160.
disruption scenarios, the ripple effect dispersal and recovery paths in supply chains. Snoeck, A., Udenio, M., Fransoo, J.C., 2019. A stochastic program to evaluate disruption
Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03454-1. mitigation investments in the supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 274 (2), 516–530.
Peck, H., 2005. Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework. Int. J. Snyder, L.V., Zümbül, A., Peng, P., Ying, R., Schmitt, A.J., Sinsoysal, B., 2016. OR/MS
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 35 (4), 210–232. models for supply chain disruptions: a review. IIE Trans. 48 (2), 89–109.
Pettit, T., Fiksel, J., Croxton, K., 2010. Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of Sokolov, B., 2020. In: Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. (Eds.), Scheduling in Industry 4.0 and Cloud
a conceptual framework. J. Bus. Logist. 31 (1), 1–21. Manufacturing. Springer, New York. ISBN 978-3-030-43176-1.
Ponomarov, S., Holcomb, M., 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain Sokolov, B., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Pavlov, A., 2016. Structural quantification of the
resilience. ternational Journal of Logistics Management 20 (1), 124–143. ripple effect in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (1), 152–169.
Pournader, M., Kach, A., Talluri, S., 2020. A Review of the Existing and Emerging Topics Spiegler, V.L.M., Naim, M., 2017. Investigating sustained oscillations in nonlinear
in Supply Chain Risk Management Literature. Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/ production and inventory control models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 261 (2), 572–583.
10.1111/deci.12470. Swierczek, A., 2014. The impact of supply chain integration on the ‘snowball effect’ in
Pournader, M., Rotaru, K., Kach, A.P., Razavi Hajiagha, S.H., 2016. An analytical model the transmission of disruptions: an empirical evaluation of the model. Int. J. Prod.
for system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks. Econ. 157, 89–104.
Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 21 (5), 589–609. Tan, W.J., Zhang, A.N., Cai, W., 2019. A graph-based model to measure structural
Queiroz, M.M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Fosso Wamba, S., 2020. Impacts of epidemic redundancy for supply chain resilience. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (20), 6385–6404.
outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 Tang, L., Jing, K., He, J., Stanley, H.E., 2016. Complex interdependent supply chain
pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/ networks: cascading failure and robustness. Physica A 443, 58–69.
10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7. Tang, O., Musa, S.N., 2011. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply
Sawik, T., 2020. Supply Chain Disruption Management, second ed. Springer, New York. chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 133, 25–34.
Scheibe, K.P., Blackhurst, J., 2018. Supply chain disruption propagation: a systemic risk Wood, M.D., Wells, E.M., Rice, G., Linkov, I., 2019. Quantifying and mapping resilience
and normal accident theory perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1–2), 43–59. within large organizations. Omega 87, 117–126.
Schmitt, T.G., Kumar, S., Stecke, K.E., Glover, F.W., Ehlen, M.A., 2017. Mitigating World Health Organization (WHO), 2018. Managing epidemics: the key facts about
disruptions in a multi-echelon supply chain using adaptive ordering. Omega 68, major deadly disease. Available online on. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disea
185–198. ses/managing-epidemics-interactive.pdf. (Accessed 2 May 2020).
Sheffi, Y., Rice, J.B., 2005. A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Yildiz, H., Yoon, J., Talluri, S., Ho, W., 2016. Reliable supply chain network design.
Manag. Rev. 47 (1), 41–48. Decis. Sci. J. 47 (4), 661–698.
Shen, B., Li, Q., 2017. Market disruptions in supply chains: a review of operational Yoon, J., Talluri, S., Yildiz, H., Ho, W., 2018. Models for supplier selection and risk
models. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 24, 697–711. mitigation: a holistic approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (10), 3636–3661.
Silbermayr, L., Minner, S., 2014. A multiple sourcing inventory model under disruption Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R., Yang, J., 2019. Dynamism, disruption orientation, and
risk. nternational Journal of Production Economics 149, 37–46. resilience in the supply chain and the impacts on financial performance: a dynamic
Singh, S., Kumar, R., Panchal, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on logistics capabilities perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 218, 352–362.
systems and disruptions in food supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–16. https://doi. Zeng, Y., Xiao, R., 2014. Modelling of cluster supply network with cascading failure
org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1792000. spread and its vulnerability analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (23), 6938–6953.
Zhao, M., Freeman, N.K., 2019. Robust sourcing from suppliers under ambiguously
correlated major disruption risks. Prod. Oper. Manag. 28 (2), 441–456.
16

International Journal of Production Economics: Dmitry Ivanov, Alexandre Dolgui

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Economics: Dmitry Ivanov, Alexandre Dolgui

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Economics: Dmitry Ivanov, Alexandre Dolgui

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int. J.

Production Economics 232 (2021) 107921

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Production Economics

Fig. 1. Organization of our study.

Fig. 2. Literature selection criteria.

Fig. 3. Ripple-effect research methodologies.

capability and redundant

structure dynamics and

the SC resilience theory provide a sufficient conceptual foundation,

Fig. 4. Summary of theoretical and managerial insights.

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.