Building resilience into the supply chain: interview with Yossi Sheffi
In his new book, The Power of Resilience, MIT professor Yossi Sheffi looks at how businesses can anticipate, prepare for, and respond to disruptive events.
How vulnerable is your supply chain? What can you do to protect it from disruptions, especially those you cannot anticipate? These questions take on more and more urgency in an age of complex global supply chains, where events in one region can disrupt the operations of businesses and their customers on the other side of the world.
In his new book, The Power of Resilience: How the Best Companies Manage the Unexpected, Yossi Sheffi examines what many companies have done—and are doing—to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to disruptions that can range from earthquakes to hurricanes to cyberattacks to issues with sourcing that could harm business reputations.
The book is Sheffi's second on the topic of resilience. His first, The Resilient Enterprise, was published in 2005 in response to the 9/11 attacks. In the intervening decade, much has changed in both the landscape of supply chain risks and the implementation of corporate resiliency programs, Sheffi says. The new book looks at what companies have learned since that time and at new threats that have arisen.
Sheffi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, discussed the new book and supply chain resilience Peter Bradley, the editorial director of CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity. This is an edited and condensed version of the interview.
Â
Q: What led you to decide it was time for a second book on the topic of resilience?
A: The first book was motivated by 9/11, looking at what companies were doing to prepare for disruption. When I started work on that book, I figured I'd begin by seeing what had already been written about this topic and I found nothing on logistics, supply chain, and transportation—in academic writing, at least. Since I didn't have any literature to draw from, I did research. I talked to well over a hundred companies. That research, which took four years and involved 30 people, led to the first book.
Then, when I was out talking to companies a few years back, more and more people were telling me, "Look, it's time for a new book because the threats are becoming more serious and more frequent, but we're also becoming a lot better at a number of new activities and processes, and (business continuity planning) has been taken to a higher level in corporations." So I put together a team and starting working on the new book.
Q: You write in the preface that we shouldn't look at this book as a sequel or a new edition of the original, that it really is something different. Tell me how.
A: It looks at a whole new set of threats that I didn't cover very much in the first book. For example, think about cybersecurity problems. Ten years ago, we were just starting to hear about cybersecurity problems. Today, "cyber" is a weapon. Many physical systems are being run by digital means and can be attacked.
It also became very important to talk about social and environmental responsibility: (the factory fires) in Bangladesh; the conflict mineral issues, which forced Intel and Apple to go to this very deep level—10 to 12 tiers deep—in the supply chain to find out where these minerals were coming from. This became a real corporate reputational risk. And, of course, there have been things like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that changed a lot of companies' views on risk and their own vulnerability to disruption.
In the new book, I also emphasize a point that I did not make and should have made last time that people always look at the top right corner [in a quadrant chart of possible disruptions and estimations of their likelihood and impact] where the probability (of an event) is high and the consequences are high, but that is the wrong place to look. Companies prepare for these events, and as a result, although the impacts could be severe, they are not that high because companies are ready for them. I point out the really worrisome quadrant is the high-consequence/very-low-probability corner because this is the "black swan." This is the 2008 financial meltdown. This is 9/11. This is Chernobyl. These are the things that nobody expected and nobody knew how to deal with. And the question is, how do you prepare for things that you cannot even imagine, things that you don't even know that you don't know. A lot of the issues in the book have to do with general preparation or general resilience for what you can't even imagine because it never happened to you, to your competitors, or to other people in the industry.
Another change that is introduced to this framework is what I call "detectability"—the time from when you know something is going to happen to the first impact. Think of the classic example, a hurricane. You know three days before we see the storm.
But you (also) have to prepare for something that you only find out about after the fact. Think about some sabotage, some people stealing trade secrets, some cyberbug in your system.
There are a lot of new software applications that didn't exist 10 years ago that are designed to alert you as soon as something happens and tell you what the implications are, what the value risk is, which customers and products will be affected, and what problems you're going to have. I cover some of these new software applications in the book.
Q: You talked a few minutes ago about how while the risks are higher today, we have also learned a lot. What have we learned over the last 10 years that we've been able to put to work to help mitigate risks?
A: In terms of things that you can point to, such as an earthquake in an area that's prone to quakes or floods, you have to prepare for things that have happened before and can happen again. What is the communication plan? How should you notify whoever it is: the customers, Wall Street, suppliers, whatever? Who should be notified? Who should be involved in making up the plan? How do you respond?
The other side is the completely unexpected situation where you don't know what to do beyond general resilience measures. For this, you first of all have to have an emergency response operation and you have to have all the communications lines. The number one thing is what I said: You have to know who to call. Who should be the people to man these emergency operations? In a manufacturing company, it should be basically two functions, supply chain management and engineering.
Supply chain management should focus on inventory—looking at how to acquire more supplies where needed and seeking alternative suppliers. Engineering should look for damage solutions. Can we replace a component with another part? How do we qualify another part and so forth?
In general, the response should be two-pronged and involve two separate teams. One team should deal with the people. What is the impact on people? How do we find everybody? How do we deal with our suppliers? The other team should deal with business continuity issues. Because otherwise, depending on the nature of the team, they pay too much attention to one or the other.
Q: Let me go back to risk assessment for a moment. You talked about Intel and how deeply it had to dig to find out where its minerals come from. How does a company find out the risk deep in its supply chain, in its tier three, four, or five?
A: Oh, there was talk about a tier 12 or something. Anyway, Intel learned that four metals used in electronic products might be "conflict minerals," metals that have been mined under conditions of coercion and violence, and mobilized a team to ensure that its operations were "conflict free." The first question was, "Are we using conflict minerals?" But nobody knew. So the company started going backward in the supply chain, and it realized that it had to go back to about level five or six. Beyond this, you cannot tell where a material is coming from because the supplier gets it from multiple sources and just mixes it all together.
Intel decided to focus on the smelters and make sure the smelters' brokers only bought from approved mines. The thought was the company was not going to buy anything from mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but that would just throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work in a very poor country. So it couldn't do that.
So then it went to the smelters and tried to convince them to do it, but the problem is, as big as Intel is, it is not a very big customer of the smelter. And the smelter says, "I am not selling to you. I'm selling to some broker who then sells to another customer, who sells it to some other company." So Intel put together an industry consortium [the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition]. And it paid the smelters to qualify certain mines so it knew where minerals were coming from. It took Intel years, by the way.
Q: One of the arguments you make in the book is that by looking at your risk, by preparing for risk, you actually strengthen the entire enterprise. Expand on that a bit.
A: For an example, there is Intel. It had to map its entire supply chain. Knowing who the people upstream are, you not only get risk protection—the sense that if something happened to one of them, you know what the implications are—but you also learn more about what's going on in the supply chain. You start understanding your own supply chain a lot better, which always brings good things.
Benefits for Amazon's customers--who include marketplace retailers and logistics services customers, as well as companies who use its Amazon Web Services (AWS) platform and the e-commerce shoppers who buy goods on the website--will include generative AI (Gen AI) solutions that offer real-world value, the company said.
The launch is based on “Amazon Nova,” the company’s new generation of foundation models, the company said in a blog post. Data scientists use foundation models (FMs) to develop machine learning (ML) platforms more quickly than starting from scratch, allowing them to create artificial intelligence applications capable of performing a wide variety of general tasks, since they were trained on a broad spectrum of generalized data, Amazon says.
The new models are integrated with Amazon Bedrock, a managed service that makes FMs from AI companies and Amazon available for use through a single API. Using Amazon Bedrock, customers can experiment with and evaluate Amazon Nova models, as well as other FMs, to determine the best model for an application.
Calling the launch “the next step in our AI journey,” the company says Amazon Nova has the ability to process text, image, and video as prompts, so customers can use Amazon Nova-powered generative AI applications to understand videos, charts, and documents, or to generate videos and other multimedia content.
“Inside Amazon, we have about 1,000 Gen AI applications in motion, and we’ve had a bird’s-eye view of what application builders are still grappling with,” Rohit Prasad, SVP of Amazon Artificial General Intelligence, said in a release. “Our new Amazon Nova models are intended to help with these challenges for internal and external builders, and provide compelling intelligence and content generation while also delivering meaningful progress on latency, cost-effectiveness, customization, information grounding, and agentic capabilities.”
The new Amazon Nova models available in Amazon Bedrock include:
Amazon Nova Micro, a text-only model that delivers the lowest latency responses at very low cost.
Amazon Nova Lite, a very low-cost multimodal model that is lightning fast for processing image, video, and text inputs.
Amazon Nova Pro, a highly capable multimodal model with the best combination of accuracy, speed, and cost for a wide range of tasks.
Amazon Nova Premier, the most capable of Amazon’s multimodal models for complex reasoning tasks and for use as the best teacher for distilling custom models
Amazon Nova Canvas, a state-of-the-art image generation model.
Amazon Nova Reel, a state-of-the-art video generation model that can transform a single image input into a brief video with the prompt: dolly forward.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.