Category Archives: Supply Chain

Quantifying Supply Chain Risk

Posted on by

Today, more businesses around the world depend on efficient and resilient global supply chains to drive performance and achieve ongoing success. By quantifying where and how value is generated along the supply chain and overlaying of the array of risks that might cause the most significant disruptions, risk managers will help their businesses determine how to deploy mitigation resources in ways that will deliver the most return in strengthening the resiliency of their supply chains. At the same time, they will gain needed insights to make critical decisions on risk transfer and insurance solutions to protect their companies against the financial consequences of potential disruptions.

As businesses evaluate their supply chain risk and develop strategies for managing it, they might consider using a quantification framework, which can be adapted to any traditional or emerging risk.

  • Begin with a “bricks and mortar” risk assessment. Start with the traditional property business interruption risk, focusing first on exposures related to your company’s owned physical plants and facilities as well as those of critical trading partners.
  • Understand and analyze your global business model, as well as any changes that have been implemented to create efficiencies or as a result of mergers, acquisitions or divestitures. Determine exactly how and where value is created and use this information to identify and assess potential vulnerabilities.
  • Distinguish between volume and value. You may have significant trade volume in dollar terms with one partner that can be easily replaced while the dollar volume of trade with a supplier of a critical raw material, component or ingredient may be small, but difficult and costly to replace.  In this case, the supplier with the least spend could be the one that has the most impact if disrupted.
  • Tie financial impacts to risk of disruption. This will enable your company to establish priorities and allocate resources in dealing with potential exposures.
  • Beginning with your most significant potential exposures, understand what mitigation options are available and compare them to what you already have in place.
  • Quantify your worst-case exposures in terms of maximum foreseeable losses.
  • Know your company’s ability to respond to events and threats, especially those that might affect the most critical elements of your supply chain. Identify specific emerging risks that are likely to have the greatest potential financial consequences, such as: cyber network interruption; political and expropriation risk; infectious disease and pandemic; product liability and recall, as well as other potential exposures.
  • In evaluating various supply chain exposures, leverage findings from the traditional business interruption study conducted earlier in the process. This can help determine how other risks might affect specific operations and individual trading partners and, in turn, cause disruptions along the supply chain. Remember, all business interruption risk resides on your company’s P&L and within your unique business model, regardless of cause.
  • Revisit your business continuity, incident response and crisis management plans in the context of the wider range of potential risks confronting your supply chain and individual trading partners.
  • Quantify worst-case financial exposures.  This will give you the ability to pinpoint how and where to allocate resources to mitigate exposures as well as to set priorities with respect to your risk transfer decisions, including coverages purchased, limits and optimal program structure.

Oil Transportation by Rail or Pipeline? A Nation Vacillates

Posted on by

Thanks to some high-profile derailments over the past several months, the zeitgeist is set against the transportation of crude oil by rail.

The latest salvo to appear in a major media outlet is Jon Bowermaster’s Op-Doc “A Danger on the Rails,” appearing in the New York Times on April 21. Bowermaster focuses on oil cars rolling along the Hudson River, but his critiques of these trains are applicable to the national debate as well.

buy trazodone online www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/gif/trazodone.html no prescription pharmacy

They are, by now, predictable: the transports are derided as “bomb trains,” and they’re creeping past schools, hospitals, and major urban centers (even within a few miles of Manhattan!).

The production values are good, but Bowermaster ventures deep into NIMBY-ism. He’s not alone: when it comes to the transportation of oil, Americans want it done quickly and cheaply so the economy can keep humming along. Just make sure it’s routed somewhere else.

buy nizoral online www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/gif/nizoral.html no prescription pharmacy

Fear of oil trains is nearing fever pitch, but the best alternative—pipelines—earn emotionally charged reactions as well. Take Politico’s thorough investigation of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also published on April 21. Despite the great journalism it contains, editors gave it the inflammatory title “‘Pipelines Blow Up and People Die.’” The authors write:

“Oil and gas companies like to assure the public that pipelines are a safer way to ship their products than railroads or trucks. But government data makes clear there is hardly reason to celebrate.

buy rogaine online www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/gif/rogaine.html no prescription pharmacy

Last year, more than 700 pipeline failures killed 19 people, injured 97 and caused more than $300 million in damage. Two of the past five years have been the worst for combined pipeline-related deaths and injuries since 2000.”

So much for an easy decision between rail and pipeline.

If the United States is going to be a leading producer and exporter of oil and gas, we have to transport it from the interior to our ports. And as domestic production increases, the number of accidents will almost certainly increase. If we cast a risk manager’s eye on the situation, where should we invest our money?

The data on rail transportation accidents makes a strong case for pipelines. Christopher Ingraham of the Washington Post put it succinctly in his February article: “It’s a Lot Riskier to Move Oil by Train Instead of Pipeline.” His charts tell the story:

Oil trains clearly have more accidents than pipelines, and in a bad year (like 2013) the amount of oil they spill can dwarf that of pipeline accidents. Oil trains have another huge risk: security. As Bowermaster noted in his documentary, these combustible trains are essentially unguarded and travel through populated areas. A determined terrorist could do a lot of damage with that situation. Pipelines, on the other hand, are buried: out of sight and out of mind.

An April 6 article in Businessweek helps us visualize the magnitude of the risk from rail shipments. Check out the growth since 2010:

While imperfect, pipelines can mitigate much of this risk that’s now moving along the nation’s rails.

Rail transport won’t go away, of course. It’s easily scalable to demand and thus more attractive than building thousands of miles of pipeline that could, in the future, be underutilized. What’s best is a two-pronged approach: pipelines can reduce risk in the most heavily trafficked corridors, and new rail standards can improve the safety of oil trains.

To read more about improving safety requirements for oil trains, see Risk Management Magazine.

Risks and Questions Surround 3D Printing Technology

Posted on by

NEW ORLEANS—One of the most promising new technologies to hit the wider market in recent years, 3D printing is poised to revolutionize manufacturing as we know it. Otherwise known as additive manufacturing, 3D printing allows users to print almost anything they can dream up, including toys, machine parts, clothing, food, and prosthetic (as well as actual) body parts. There even companies that can print a lifesize, 3D model of your unborn fetus using ultrasound scans.

Of course, as with any new technology, there are many risks to consider and just as many unanswered questions about how to address those risks. At an educational session this morning at the RIMS 2015 Annual Conference & Exhibition, Cynthia Slubowski, head o f manufacturing at Zurich, Lisa Cirando, and attorney with Jones Day and Toni Herwaldt, risk manager at Kraft Foods, provided a risk checklist, outlining at the wide range of risks and questions facing those in the 3D printing space and those whose industries will be impacted by this new technology:

Product risk. Since 3D printing changes the traditional manufacturing model, industries will need to determine who owns a 3D printed product and in the event of an accident how will liability be apportioned?

Technology risk. Who owns the software and designs used to create products, particularly when users can make endless customizations?

Operations risk. How will 3D printing impact power supplies (the printers generate a lot of heat during operation), and how will the possible toxicity of ingredients and their byproducts be addressed. In addition, what are the business interruption and transportation risks?

Cybersecurity risk. How do you protect you designs and formulas? How do you prevent counterfeiting?

Environmental risk. How do you address exhaust, housing and disposal issues?

Contract risk. What kind of risk transfer or licensing agreements do you want to have in place?

Insurance risk. Do you have the appropriate coverage and where will it be coming from?

Strategic risk. How do you handle reputation and intellectual property issues? What happens to your product development lifecycle management?

Supply chain risk. Does your supply chain risk increase or decrease?

Market risk. What differentiates your product? What happens to your geographical risk?

Study Lists Most and Least Resilient Countries

Posted on by

Businesses are more dependent on their supply chains than ever, with supply chain disruption one of the leading causes of business instability. To thrive, companies need to be resilient, and part of that is their location and the location of suppliers. According to FM Global’s 2015 FM Global Resilience Index, Norway tops the list of resilient countries, with Switzerland in second place.

The study’s purpose is to help companies evaluate and manage their supply chain risk by ranking 130 countries and regions in terms of their business resilience to supply chain disruption. Data is based on: economic strength, risk quality (mostly related to natural hazard exposure and risk management) and supply chain factors (including corruption, infrastructure and local supplier quality).

According to the study:

1. Norway retains its top position in the index from last year, with strong results for economic productivity, control of corruption, political risk and resilience to an oil shock. The country’s management of fire risk offers opportunity to improve still further.

2. Despite its massive oil reserves, Venezuela ranks 130, placing it at the bottom of the index, and reflecting the many challenges South America faces, ranging from economic and political to geological, with its west coast on the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’.

3. Taiwan has jumped the most in the index – 52 places in the annual ranking to 37; more than any other country. Its rise is due mainly to a substantial improvement in the country’s commitment to risk management, as it relates both to natural hazard risk and fire risk. Given the country’s location at the western edge of the Philippine Sea plate, this is a welcome development.

4. Ukraine, ranked 107, and Kazakhstan, ranked 102, dropped more places this year than any other country; a fall of 31 places each. Unsurprisingly, for Ukraine, the worsening political risk, combined with poorer infrastructure, was to blame. The fall for Kazakhstan this year reflects a poorer commitment to natural hazard risk management in the region.

5. In the European Union (EU), Greece fell from position 54 to 65. The recent victory of the anti-austerity Syriza party almost certainly will usher in a period of greater friction and turbulence with its EU partners.

6. France, ranked 19, trails Germany at 6, the leading EU nation. France has slid down the index in recent years reflecting a rising risk of terrorism – evidenced tragically in Paris – and deteriorating perceptions of both infrastructure and local suppliers. Also exposed to terrorism risk is the United Kingdom, which nevertheless held steady at 20 for the third year running, aided by its relative resistance to oil shocks.

New to the top 10 this year are Qatar, ranked 7, and Finland, ranked 9. Qatar benefits from its macroeconomic stability, efficient goods and labor markets and high degree of security. The country owes its rise of 8 places to a considerable improvement in commitment to fire risk management in the region. Finland’s strengths derive from its innovative capabilities, a product of high public and private investment in research and development, strong links between academia and private sector companies, and an excellent record in education and training, according to the study.

In 10th place is U.S. Region 3, the central region of the United States. While this part of the country is subject to a variety of natural hazards, there is less exposure than states on the east or west coasts of the country. Belgium, ranked 11, and Australia, ranked 14, dropped out of the top 10–barely–and both countries retain high positions in the 2015 index.