Integrated supply chain risk management via operational methods and financial instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is an emerging field that generally lacks integrative approaches across different disciplines. This study contributes to narrowing this gap by developing an integrated approach to SCRM using operational methods and financial instruments. We study a supply chain composed of an aluminium can supplier, a brewery and a distributor. The supply chain is exposed to aluminium price fluctuation and beer demand uncertainty. A stochastic optimisation model is developed for managing operational and financial risks along the supply chain. Using this model as a base, we compare the performance of an integrated risk management model (under which operational and financial risk management decisions are made simultaneously) to a sequential model (under which the financial risk management decisions are made after the operational risk management decisions are finalised). Through simulation-based optimisation and using experimental designs and statistical analyses, we analyse the performance of the two models in minimising the expected total opportunity cost of the supply chain. We examine the supply chain performance as a function of three factors, each at three levels: risk aversion, demand variability and aluminium price volatility. We find that the integrated model outperforms the sequential model in most but not in all cases. Furthermore, while the results indicate that the supply chain improves its performance by being less risk averse, there exists a threshold beyond which accepting a higher risk level is not justified. Managerial insights are provided for various business scenarios experimented with.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".