American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-223X Issue 46 (2012), pp. 34-42

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm


Crude Oil Supply Chain Risk Management with
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process


Mohammad Ali Vosooghi
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Social Sciences
Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
E-mail: mavosooghi@gmail.com

Safar Fazli
Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Management
Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
E-mail: Fazli@ikiu.ac.ir

Reza Kiani Mavi
Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting
Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University (IAU), Qazvin, Iran
E-mail: Rezakianimavi@yahoo.com
Tel: (+98)281 3665275-6


Abstract

Crude oil supply chain is extremely complex and vulnerable to various risks. Clear
understanding of these risks can help supply chain managers to make effective decisions.
This paper identifies main risks related to crude oil supply chain and implements fuzzy
analytic hierarch process (FAHP) for weighing them. The results show that the most
important risk area is the regulatory and environmental risks and that the transference and
cooperation policy is rated as the best response strategy. Contributions of this paper are
two-fold: (1) it provides a comprehensive framework of risks that need to be considered in
crude oil supply chain risk management (SCRM) context; and (2) it illustrates that how
various risks and risk management strategies can be assessed through the FAHP approach
to aid managers in their decision making processes.


Keywords: Supply chain risk management (SCRM); Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(FAHP); Crude oil supply chain.

1. Introduction
Crude oil is the worlds main source of energy, consisting more than 10% of worlds trade. More than
160 different crude oil types with different qualities are internationally traded. Different crude oils have
different prices. The significance of oil in the global market is more than its impact on the energy
industry. Because of the global high profile of crude oil trading, and its important role on world
economy crude oil supply chain is subject to a high level of scrutiny. Crude oil supply chain is like the
supply chain of any other industry and supply chain concepts can be implemented to this industry.
Crude Oil Supply Chain Risk Management with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process 35

Most of the oil industry companies still operate their planning, central engineering, upstream
operations, refining, and supply and transportation groups as complete separate entities. Therefore,
systematic methods for efficiently managing petroleum supply chain as one entity must be exploited
(Shah, Li, and Ierapetritou, 2011).
There is sufficient literature on supply chain risk management (SCRM) acknowledging that
todays supply chains are more vulnerable than ever before, for several reasons: globalization, natural
disasters, wars, terrorist attacks, complexity of supply chains, new business strategies, etc (e.g., Chopra
and Sodhi, 2004; Jttner, 2005; Christopher and Lee, 2004; Jttner, Peck, and Christopher, 2003). Oil
supply chain is not only vulnerable to various risks like other industries but also extremely complex
compared to other industries. While many scholars have studied supply chain risks in different
industries, how to implement these concepts in oil supply chain is still a challenge. In this paper, we
respond to this challenge by comprehensive literature review, experts viewpoints and applying two
decision-making models.
This study aims to provide a comprehensive framework of risks that need to be considered in
crude oil supply chain risk management context. Then it illustrates that how various risks and risk
management strategies can be assessed through the FAHP approach to aid managers in effective
decision making process of SCRM.
Remaining parts of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews exiting literature on
supply chain risk management and oil supply chain. The methodology is illustrated in Section 3.
Section 4 classifies risk types as criteria and risk management as alternatives. Illustrated methodology
is applied in section 5. In section 6, we make concluding remarks.


2. Literature Review
Literature relevant to this article falls into two main areas: supply chain risk management and oil and
petroleum supply chain. Review of the literature is on these two topics.

2.1. Supply Chain Risk Management
Although SCRM is fairly new research area (Wagner and Bode, 2008) and still in the infancy stage
(Vanany, Zailani, and Pujawan, 2009), there are various helpful studies with different approaches and
methodologies. Here we briefly review the studies that are most relevant to our study.
In todays marketplaces supply chains are more vulnerable and are exposed to many different
forms of risks. This increased vulnerability is due to both external events such as wars and terrorist
attacks and changes in business strategies (internal factors) such as outsourcing and Lean practices.
Supply chain risks can be created through a lack of confidence among supply chain members. There
are two elements of supply chains that can reduce the lack of confidence: visibility and control.
Improved end-to-end visibility is one key element in strategies designed to mitigate supply chain risks
(Christopher and Lee, 2004). In dealing with different mitigating strategies Tang (2006) presents a
comprehensive review of quantitative models for managing supply chain risks. He defines supply chain
risk management as the management of supply chain risks through coordination and collaboration
among the supply chain partners so as to ensure profitability and continuity and analyzes four basic
approaches(supply management, demand management, product management, and information
management) for managing supply chain risks . He also argues that efficiency and resiliency are two
critical factors for firms to ensure profitability and business continuity, which is accordant with the
definition of SCRM.
The study of Manuj and Mentzer (2008) underlines the importance of understanding global
supply chains and indicates that beside the benefits that absorb firms there are uncertainties and risks
that managers face in global supply chains. They investigate and explore phenomenon risk
management and associated strategies. They implement grounded theory in order to address the three
major gaps identified in an initial SCRM literature review: nonexistence of an adequate definition of
36 Mohammad Ali Vosooghi, Safar Fazli and Reza Kiani Mavi

supply chain risk, inability to address the manner of selecting risk management strategy, and limited
research on moderators of risk management. Based on existing literature and in-depth interviews they
develop the definition of global supply chain risk management as: Global supply chain risk
management is the identification and evaluation of risks and consequent losses in the global supply
chain, and implementation of appropriate strategies through a coordinated approach among supply
chain members with the objective of reducing one or more of the following losses, probability, speed
of event, speed of losses, the time for detection of the events, frequency, or exposure for supply chain
outcomes that in turn lead to close matching of actual cost savings and profitability with those
desired.
Tang and Nurmaya Musa (2010) investigate recent literature relevant to SCRM and research
development in SCRM. They investigate major risk issues and risk mitigation techniques based on
material, cash, and information flows. This study indicates that the existing literature includes mainly
descriptive and conceptual models rather than quantitative models. Among 138 surveyed papers, 78%
belong to conceptual and qualitative category.
Blome and Schoenherr (2011) provide a general overview of the current state of SCRM in
business and investigate successful approaches and experiences by companies in dealing with SCRM
in economic and financial crisis, especially as it concerns the supply side. They use case studies among
eight European companies to study about how companies manage their supply risks in financial crises
and how their risk management approaches have shifted. They present an illustrative recent research
conducted in this area in the form of a Table which contains 23 papers and summarizes the main
objectives of the papers, their methodology, focus and perspective. Among these 23 papers, the
perspective of 13 papers is on supply chain and 9 papers on purchasing and the focus of all papers
except one paper is risk and disruption.
Clear understanding of risk types in supply chains can help managers of industries to apply
effective risk-reduction approaches to their own companies. Leading companies like Dell, Toyota, and
Motorola excel at identifying their supply chain risks, and at applying effective mitigation strategies
that neutralize potentially negative effects (Chopra and Sodhi, 2004). In an empirical study Wagner
and Bode (2008) provide a detailed operationalization of supply chain risk construct and examine the
relationship between supply chain risk sources and supply chain performance. They divide risk sources
into five categories.

2.2. Oil Supply Chain
Historical perspective on supply chain management indicates that the seeds of supply chain
management were planted in the early 1980s (Fawcett, 2000) and since early 1990s globalization has
witnessed major developments in supply chain management context (Fernandes, Barbosa-Pvoa, and
Relvas, 2009). Despite the improvements and importance of supply chain management and its growing
complexity, the petroleum industry is still in the development stage of efficiently managing their
supply chains. In fact, the oil and petrochemical industrys insight into the supply chain is still in its
infancy (Hussain, Assavapokee, and Khumawala, 2006).
The oil industry is global in nature and crude oil and its derivatives are transferred between
locations that are remote places. The oil supply chain is extremely complex compared to other
industries (Hussain et al. 2006). Oil supply chain contains various interconnected processes, activities
and components. In attempting to depict oil supply chain, many scholars have proposed different
simulations and descriptions. For example, Carneiro, Ribas, and Hamacher ( 2010) in their study on
strategic planning of an oil supply chain group activities into two main areas: upstream and
downstream. The first segment i.e., upstream involves well prospecting, exploration, drilling and
completion, and oil production. The second segment i.e., downstream involves transportation, refining,
and distribution of crude oil and refined products. Deviding oil supply chain activities into two
segment is a common way(method) used by many scholars and researches but this deviation is not a
uniq one. In other words different scholars mention different activities and terms in their depiction(e.g.
Crude Oil Supply Chain Risk Management with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process 37

Hussain et al. 2006; Fernandes et al. 2009; Fernandes et al. 2010; Carneiro et al. 2010; Shah et al.
2011).
Cigolini and Rossi (2010) divide oil supply chain into three main stages: drilling, primary
transport and refining. They emphasize on the importance of supply chain risks in oil and petroleum
industry and they indicate that the operational risk in oil supply chain is bullwhipped. Due to this
importance they propose a model to analyze the operational risk at the drilling, primary transport and
refining stage of the oil supply chain. They identify various operational risks which influence different
stages and recommend different risk management processes for each stage.
The study of Fernandes et al. (2010) provides a quantitative approach concerning the process of
risk analysis and assessment in petroleum supply chain. In order to identify the risks, this paper uses a
framework which hierarchically relate first the risk agents, second the risk sources, the risk objects and
finally the risk events and then it follows the risk mitigation process to complete the risk information.
The study of Carneiro et al. (2010) also applies a quantitave approach the goal of this study is to
include financial risk management in the integrated oil supply chain planning under uncertainty.
Despite the rich body of literature concerning SCRM in different industries, oil supply chain
risk issues have been studied less. This paper aims to present a comprehensive SCRM framework in oil
supply chain.


3. Methodology
In this section, FAHP method is illustrated. The procedures that are used in the methods are described
as follows.

3.1. Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP
The outlines of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP can be summarized as follows:
Let X = {x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
n
} be an object set, and U = {u
1
, u
2
, . . . , u
m
} be a goal set. According to
the Changs extent analysis method, each object is taken and extent analysis for each goal g
i
is
performed, respectively. Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained and shown
as follows:
1 2

, , , , 1, 2, . (1) =
m
gi gi gi
M M M i n (1)
Where all the

j
gi
M (j = 1; 2, . . . ,m) are triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) whose parameters are
l, m and u. They are the least possible value, the most possible value, and the largest possible value
respectively. A TFN is represented as (l,m,u). The steps of the extent analysis method can be given as
follows:
Step 1. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to its object is defined as:
1

1 1 1

m
j

= = =
(
=
(

n m
j j
i gi gi
i j
S M M (2)
To obtain

1
m
j =

j
gi
M perform the fuzzy addition operation of m extent analysis values for a
particular matrix
Such that:

1 1 1 1
, , (3)
= = = =
| |
=
|
|
\

m m m m
j
gi j j j
j j j j
M l m u (3)
and to obtain
1

1 1

= =
(
(

n m
j
gi
i j
M , perform the fuzzy edition operation of m extent analysis values
for a particular matrix such that:
38 Mohammad Ali Vosooghi, Safar Fazli and Reza Kiani Mavi


1 1 1 1 1
, , (4)
= = = = =
| |
=
|
|
\

n m m m m
j
gi i i i
i j j j j
M l m u (4)
Then, the inverse of the vector in equation (5) is computed as:
1

1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
, ,

= =
= = =
| |
( |
=

|
\


n n
j
gi n n n
i j
i i i
i i i
M
u m l
(5)
Step 2. The degree of possibility of M
2
= (l
2
, m
2
, u
2
) M
1
= (l
1
, m
1
, u
1
) is defined as:
( ) ( ) ( )
2 1 1 2
[ ( , )]
M M
V M M Sup Min x y = (6)
this can be expressed equivalently as follows:
( ) ( )
2
2 1
2 1 2 1 1 2
1 2
2 2 1 1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) 0 (7)
if
V hgt d if
M
otherwise
m m
l u M M M M
l u
m u m l

= = =

(7)
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between
M1
and
M2
(see Figure. 1). To
compare M
1
and M
2
, both the values of V(M
1
M
2
) and V(M
2
M
1
) are needed.
Step 3. The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy
numbers Mi (i = 1, 2, . . . , k) can be defined by:
V (M M
1
, M
2
, . . . ,M
k
) = V[ (M M
1
) and (M M
2
) and . . . and (M M
k
) ] = min
V(M M
i
) , i = 1 , 2, . . . ,k . (8)
Assume That :
d (S
i
) = min V (S
i
S
k
) (9)

Figure 1: The intersection between M1 and M2



For k = 1, 2, . . . , n; k i. Then the weight vector is given by:
W = d (S
1
), d (S
2
), . . . , d (S
n
))
T
(10)

where S
i
(i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are n elements.
Step 4. After normalization (the elements of each column is divided by the sum of that column
and the elements in each resulting row are added and this sum is divided by the number of elements in
the row), the normalized weight vectors are obtained as follows:
W = (d(S
1
), d(S
2
), . . . , d(S
n
))
T

Where W is not a fuzzy number.
Crude Oil Supply Chain Risk Management with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process 39

In fuzzy-AHP, firstly, the criteria and alternatives importance weights must be compared. For
this reason, there must be linguistic terms and their equivalent fuzzy numbers denoting comparison
measures. Afterwards, for the first step, the comparisons about the criteria and alternatives, and the
weight calculation need to be made. Thus, the evaluation of the criteria according to the main goal and
the evaluation of the alternatives for these criteria must be realized. Then, after all these evaluation
procedure, the weights of the alternatives can be calculated (Gumus, 2009).


4. Criteria of Decision Making
In the following we define five risk sources, a, b, c, d, and e as our decision making criteria. For doing
so we apply the taxonomy of Wagner and Bode, (2008) and then by using experts viewpoints and
reviewing existing literature define risk types for each risk source as sub-criteria. Then we explain risk
management strategies.

1. Criteria
a) Demand side risks: These risks are based on downstream supply chain activities (Svensson,
2002). In other words demand side risks results from disruptions emerging from downstream
operations supply chain (Jttner, Supply Chain Risk Management - Understanding the
Business Requirements From a Practitioner Perspective, 2005).
b) Supply side risks: companies are exposed to various risks associated with the upstream side of
their supply chains. These risks reside in purchasing, suppliers, supplier relationships, and
supply networks (Wagner and Bode, 2008).
c) Regulatory risks: This category refers to the legal enforceability and execution of supply
chain-relevant laws and policies as well as the degree and frequency of changes in these laws
and policies (Wagner and Bode, 2008).
d) Infrastructure risks: This category of risk involves disruptions that materialize from the
infrastructure that a firm maintains for its supply chain operations (Wagner and Bode, 2008).
Among the risks reported in Marsh national oil company conference 2007, one of them is
upgrading systems and structures, such that they continue to meet required technical
standards and existing proposed usage requirements.
e) Catastrophic: This category involves pervasive events that, when they occur, have a severe
impact on the area of their occurrence (Wagner and Bode, 2008).
The hierarchy of the SCRM is as figure 2.

Figure 2:The hierarchy of the SCRM




5. Applying the Illustrated Method
The aggregated comparison matrix for supply chain risk management can be seen from Table 1.
SCRM
Infrastructure
risks
Regulatory
risks
Supply side
risks
Demand side
risks
Catastrophic

40 Mohammad Ali Vosooghi, Safar Fazli and Reza Kiani Mavi

Table 1: Inter-criteria comparison matrix

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
C1 (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1,2/3) (3/2,2,5/2)
C2 (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,3,5)
C3 (2/5,1,2/3) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) (1/6,1/4,1/2) (1,1,3)
C4 (3/2,2,5/2) (1,3,5) (2,4,6) (1,1,1) (3,5,7)
C5 (2/5,1,2/3) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/3,1,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,1,1)

First we calculate
1
m
j
gi
j
M
=

values for each row of the matrix:

C
1
: (1+1+3/2+2/5+3/2, 1+3+2+1+2, 1+5+5/2+2/3+5/2) = (5.4, 9, 11.67)
C
2
: (1/5+1+1+1/5+1, 1/3+1+3+1/3+3, 1+1+5+1+5) = (3.4, 7.64, 13)
C
3
: (2/5+1/5+1+1/6+1, 1+1/3+1+1/4+1, 2/3+1+1+1/2+3) = (2.77, 3.58, 6.17)
C
4
: (3/2+1+2+1+3, 2+3+4+1+5, 5/2+5+6+1+7) = (8.5, 15, 21.5)
C
5
: (2/5+1/5+1/3+1/7+1, 1+1/3+1+1/5+1, 2/3+1+1+1/3+1) = (2.076, 3.33, 4)
The
1 1
n m
j
gi
i j
M
= =

value is calculated as:
(1+1+3/2+2/5+3/2+1/5+1+1+1/5+1+2/5+1/5+1+1/6+1+3/2+1+2+1+3+2/5+1/5+1/3+1/7+1,
1+3+2+1+2+1/3+1+3+1/3+3+1+1/3+1+1/4+1+2+3+4+1+5+1+1/3+1+1/5+1,
1+5+5/2+2/3+5/2+1+1+5+1+5+2/3+1+1+1/2+3+5/2+5+6+1+7+2/3+1+1+1/3+1) = (22.14,
38.78, 56.34)
Then we can calculate the
1
n m
j
gi
i 1 j 1
M

= =
(
(


value:
1
n m
j
gi
i 1 j 1
1 1 1
M , , (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452)
56.34 38.78 22.14

= =
(
| |
= =
( |
\



S
i
values for each column of reciprocal matrix are calculated as:
S
1
= (5.4, 9, 11.67) (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452) = (0.0956, 0.2322, 0.5275)
S
2
= (3.4, 7.64, 13) (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452) = (0.0602, 0.1979, 0.5876)
S
3
= (2.77, 3.58, 6.17) (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452) = (0.049, 0.0924, 0.2789)
S
4
= (8.5, 15, 21.5) (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452) = (0.1505, 0.387, 0.9718)
S
5
= (2.076, 3.33, 4) (0.0177, 0.0258, 0.0452) = (0.0366, 0.0911, 0.1808)
Then the V values are calculated by using these vectors:
V (S
1
S
2
) = 1 V (S
1
S
3
) = 1 V (S
1
S
4
) =
( )
0.1505 0.5275
0.7089
0.2322 0.5257 (0.387 0.1505)

=


V (S
1
S
5
) = 1
V (S
2
S
1
) = 0.9348 V (S
2
S
3
) = 1 V (S
2
S
4
) = 0.69 V (S
2
S
5
) = 1
V (S
3
S
1
) =0.5673 V (S
3
S
2
) =0.6746 V (S
3
S
4
) =0.3035 V (S
3
S
5
) =1
V (S
4
S
1
) =1 V (S
4
S
2
) = 1 V (S
4
S
3
) = 1 V (S
4
S
5
) = 1
V (S
5
S
1
) =0.3756 V (S
5
S
2
) =0.5303 V (S
5
S
3
) =0.9902 V (S
5
S
4
) =0.0929

Table 2: V values result table

Criteria
1 2 3 4 5
Column Row 0.9348 0.5673 1 0.3756
Column Row 1 0.6746 1 0.5303
Column Row 1 1 1 0.9902
Column Row 0.7089 0.69 0.3035 0.0929
Column Row 1 1 1 1
Crude Oil Supply Chain Risk Management with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process 41

Final weights (W) and normalized weights (w) are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Weight of Criteria

W W
C1 0.7089 0.2536
C2 0.69 0.2468
C3 0.3035 0.1086
C4 1 0.3577
C5 0.0929 0.0332

The weights of the five risk categories (C 1, C 2, C 3, C 4, C 5) for improving the decision of
crude oil SCRM are available in Table 3, which are 0.2356, 0.2468, 0.1086, 0.3577, and 0.0332,
respectively. They imply that the fourth criterion i.e., regulatory and environmental risk is the most
important and the fifth i.e., catastrophic risk is the least important


6. Conclusion
In the risky global market which is highly dependent on crude oil, risk management is a critical
problem for a crude oil supply chain. Despite this high dependency and the importance of the subject in
global economy, the existing literature has paid less attention to apply SCRM in oil industry in
comparison with other industries like automobile. This paper suggests that framing a risk structure of
crude oil supply chain and applying FAHP model can aid managers on risk management decisions.
The main risks related to crude oil supply chain were singled out from the literature and argued
with the experts. We applied ANP approach to rank the risks. The results presented that most important
risk area is the regulatory and environmental risks and within this area the most important risk is
government risk and the second important is international actions risk.


References
[1] Blome, C., & Schoenherr, T. (2011). Supply chain risk management in financial crisesA
multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Production Economics ,
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.002.
[2] Carneiro, M. C., Ribas, G. P., & Hamacher, S. (2010). Risk Management in the Oil Supply
Chain: A CVaR Approach. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 32863294.
[3] Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT
Sloan Management Review , 53-61.
[4] Christopher, M., & Lee, H. L. (2004). Mitigating Supply Chain Risk Through Improved
Confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 388396.
[5] Cigolini, R., & Rossi, T. (2010). Managing operational risks along the oil supply chain.
Production Planning & Control , 452467.
[6] Fawcett, S. E. (2000). SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: COMPETING THROUGH
INTEGRATION . In P. M. Swamidass(ed.), ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRODUCTION AND
MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT (pp. 755-760). Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
[7] Fernandes, L. J., Barbosa-Pvoa, A. P., & Relvas, S. (2009). Risk Management in Petroleum
Supply Chain. 14 Congresso da APDIO, (pp. 157-164).
[8] Gumus AT (2009) Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step
fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications. 36: 40674074.
42 Mohammad Ali Vosooghi, Safar Fazli and Reza Kiani Mavi

[9] Hussain, R., Assavapokee, T., & Khumawala, B. (2006). Supply Chain Management in the
Petroleum Industry:Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Global Logistics &
Supply Chain Management , 90 97.
[10] Jttner, U. (2005). Supply Chain Risk Management - Understanding the Business Requirements
From a Practitioner Perspective. The International Journal of Logis tics Management , 120-141.
[11] Jttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. (2003). SUPPLY CHAIN RISK
MANAGEMENT:OUTLINING AN AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. International
Journal of Logistics : Research & Applications , 6 (4), 197-210.
[12] Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 192-223.
[13] Shah, N. K., Li, Z., & Ierapetritou, M. G. (2011). Petroleum Refining Operations: Key Issues,
Advances, and Opportunities. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. , 11611170.
[14] Tang, C. S. (2006). Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International Journal of
Production Economics , 451488.
[15] Vanany, I., Zailani, S., & Pujawan, N. (2009). Supply Chain Risk Management:Literature
Review and Future Research. Internationa Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain
Management , 16-33.
[16] Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2008). AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN
PERFORMANCE ALONG SEVERAL DIMENSIONS OF RISK. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS
LOGISTICS , 307-325.
[17] Wagner, S. M., & Bode, C. (2006 ). An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability.
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management , 301312.