4.7 Article

Robust supply chain design with suppliers as system integrators: an aerospace case study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 15, 页码 5244-5265

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2022.2099769

关键词

Aerospace industry; sourcing flexibility; supply chain design; robust optimisation; supply chain risk management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have been seeking partnerships with integrators to focus on core activities, but current risk management practices fail to support these new roles. This paper proposes a mathematical programming model for Supply Chain Design (SCD) to address this issue and optimize the number of integrators and risk measures.
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have sought new supply chain paradigms that allowed them to focus on core activities, i.e. overall product design and commercialisation. This pursuit led to partnerships with a new generation of tier-1 strategic suppliers acting as integrators. Integrators are not only responsible for system supply, but also for system design. However, critical integrators were not able to live up to their new roles, which led to costly delays in development and production. These failures highlight the ineptitude of current risk management practices employed by OEMs. To support OEMs in implementing a more differentiated and suitable approach to the use of integrators, this paper proposes a mathematical programming model for Supply Chain Design (SCD). Instead of looking at the introduction of integrators as a dichotomous decision, the model suggests the optimal number of integrators, i.e. systems, and individual part suppliers. We propose new measures for integration risk, which build upon current risk assessment practices. Robust optimisation is used to study the effect of uncertainty over baseline risk values. All approaches were tested using both randomly generated instances and real data from a large European OEM in the aerospace industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据