1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2019
  4. HMS
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2019.hms.004

Conceptual model of supply chain in risky environment: case study

  • a Peter Mensah  ,
  • b Yuri Merkuryev  , 
  • c Jelena Pecherka  , 
  • d Francesco Longo 
  • a,b,cRiga Technical University, Department of Modeling and Simulation, 1 Kalku Street, Riga, LV-1658, Latvia
  • dModeling & Simulation Center, University of Calabria, Via P. Bucci, 87036, Rende, Italy
Cite as
Mensah P., Merkuryev Y., Pecherka J., Longo F. (2019). Conceptual model of supply chain in risky environment: case study. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Harbor, Maritime and Multimodal Logistic Modeling & Simulation (HMS 2019), pp. 28-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2019.hms.004

Abstract

The supply chain faces uncertainties, especially with the flow of products and information that may affect the productivity, revenue and competitive advantages of many organizations. It is therefore necessary for these organizations to be agile and resilient enough to meet with these uncertainties so that they may be managed appropriately or even avoided. In a publication by Mensah et.al (2014), the authors introduce a theoretical approach where the „conceptualization of risks for subsequent simulation-based analysis‟ is evaluated. This includes the description of a generic conceptual model of a retail node‟ followed by the introduction of performance indicators relevant for simulation base analysis. Hence, a concept for further studies from a practical point of view has now arisen. This article therefore introduces a new case study where the flow of products in a real company is conceptualized for simulation base analysis to raise the awareness of the organization in case of uncertainties.

References

  1. Becker, K., Parker, J. R., 2011. Guide to Computer Simulations and Games. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Birta, L. G. and G. Arbez.2013. Modelling and Simulation: Exploring Dynamic System Behavior. 2nd ed. London: Springer-Verlag.
  3. Business Continuity Institute, 2011. Supply Chain Resilience 3rd Annual Survey. The Business Continuity Institute. Available from: http://www.zurich.com/internet/main/sitecollectio ndocuments/insight/supply-chain-survey-2011.pdf [accessed 7 July 2014].
  4. Business Continuity Institute, 2014. Available at: http://www.zurich.com/internet/main/sitecollectio ndocuments/reports/supply-chainresilience-2013-en.pdf.
  5. Christopher, M. and Peck, H. 2004. „Building the Resilient Supply Chain‟. International Journal of Logistics Management, 15, 1-13.
  6. Council of Standards Australia, & Council of Standards New Zealand. (2004). Risk Management Standard (2004) AS/NZS 4360. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-075067555-0/50157-2.
  7. Hale, T., Moberg, C.R., 2005. Improving supply chain disaster preparedness: A decision process for secure site location. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35, 195–207.
  8. Jüttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. 2003. Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 6(4), 197–210
  9. Lee, H., P. Padmanabhan and S. Whang. 1997. ''The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains," Sloan Management Review, 38 (1997), 93-102
  10. Mensah, P., Merkurjevs, J. and Pečerska, J. 2014. „Conceptual Model of Supply Chain Node for Simulation Based Risk Analysis‟. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Harbor Maritime and Multimodal Logistics M&S, 2014. Bordeaux: HMS 2014, 2014, pp.62-67. ISBN 978- 88-97999-39-3.
  11. Merkuryeva, G. and Bolshakovs V. 2010. „Vehicle Schedule Simulation with AnyLogic.‟ In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation (UKSim 2010), UK, Cambridge, 24-26 March, 2010.Piscataway: IEEE, 2010, pp. 169.-174. https://doi.org/10.1109/UKSIM.2010.38.
  12. Merkuryeva, G., Valberga, A. and Smirnov, A. 2019. Demand forecasting in pharmaceutical supply chains: A case study. Procedia Computer Science, 149 (2019), 3-10. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.100.
  13. Peck, H.2006. Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 2006;9(2):127–42.
  14. Protiviti, 2013. Understanding supply chain risk areas, Solutions, and plans. A five part series. Protiviti. Available from:http://www.protiviti.com/enUS/Documents/S urveys/SupplyChainRiskAreas.pdf.
  15. Robinson, S., 2004. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
  16. Robinson, S., 2008. „Conceptual Modelling for Simulation Part I: Definition and Requirements‟. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3): 278-290.
  17. Robinson, S. 2014. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Robinson, S.,Arbez, G.,Birta, L., Tolk, A., Wagner, G.2015. Conceptual Modeling: Definition, Purpose and Benefits. Proceedings of the  Winter Simulation Conference L. Yilmaz, W. K. V. Chan, I. Moon, T. M. K. Roeder, C. Macal, and M. D. Rossetti, eds.
  19. Romanovs, A. 2017. “Security in the Era of Industry 4.0.” In: Proceedings of the 2017 Open Conference of Electrical, Electronic and Information Sciences (eStream), Lithuania, Vilnius, 27-27 April, 2017. Vilnius: IEEE, 2017, p.1. ISBN 978-1-5386-3998-6.
  20. Tang, C., S. 2006a. Perspectives in supply chain risk management, Int. J. Production Economics, 103, 451–488.
  21. Tang, C.S., 2006b. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 9, 33–45.
  22. Wagner,G.2014. „Tutorial: Information and Process Modelling for Simulation‟. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference, edited by A. Tolk, S. Y. Diallo, I. O. Ryzhov, L. Yilmaz, S. Buckley and J. A. Miller, 103Î117. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.