Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a more complete understanding of logistics preparedness. By comparing extant research in preparedness and logistics with findings from empirical analysis of secondary data, the authors develop a definition of and framework for logistics preparedness, along with suggestions for future research agenda.

The authors link the way in which humanitarian organizations define and aim to achieve logistics preparedness with extant academic research. The authors critically analyze public data from 13 organizations that are active in disaster relief and review papers on logistics preparedness and humanitarian logistics.

The authors found that, despite the increased attention, there is no unified understanding across organizations about what constitutes logistics preparedness and how it can contribute to improvements in operations. Based on the review of the academic literature, the authors found that the same is true for humanitarian logistics research. The lack of a common understanding has resulted in low visibility of efforts and lack of knowledge on logistics preparedness.

On the basis of extant research and practice, the authors suggest a definition of and framework for logistics preparedness with related suggestions for future studies.

Findings can help the humanitarian community gain a better understanding of their efforts related to developing logistics preparedness and can provide a better basis for communicating the need for, and results from, funding in preparedness.

Results can support improvements in humanitarian supply chains, thereby providing affected people with rapid, cost-efficient, and better-adapted responses.

The findings contribute to humanitarian logistics literature, first by identifying the issues related to the lack of a common definition. Second, the authors extend the understanding of what constitutes logistics preparedness by proposing an operationalized framework and definition. Finally, the authors add to the literature by discussing what future topics and types of research may be required.

At the inception of the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management (JHLSCM), logistics coordination was identified as important, both in practice and research, but few studies on the topic had been published. Ten years later, many, if not most, papers in the journal mention the topic. So the picture has changed, but to what extent? This paper discusses how coordination research has followed humanitarian logistics practice and vice versa.

The point of departure in the present article is the most salient topic from the study’s original papers (Jahre et al., 2009; Jahre and Jensen, 2010). The authors discuss how these topics have developed in research and practice. A recent literature review (Grange et al., 2020) enables us to pick relevant papers from JHLSCM and supplement them with more recent ones. The authors complement this approach with updated data on the cluster system, particularly the logistics cluster, to add insights from the empirical domain.

In practice, the cluster concept has developed from coordination within clusters in response to the inclusion of inter-cluster coordination in preparedness, and more recently a focus on localized preparedness. However, JHLSCM research does not appear to have kept pace, with a few notable exceptions. The majority of its papers still focus on response. To the extent that preparedness is covered, it is primarily done so at the global level.

The authors use a framework to discuss humanitarian logistics coordination research and identify important gaps. Based on developments in practice, the study’s key contribution is a revised model with suggestions for further research.

The purpose of this paper is to link humanitarian logistics (HL) and supply chain risk management (SCRM) to provide an understanding of risk mitigation strategies that humanitarian organisations use, or could use, to improve their logistics preparedness.

Based on systematic reviews of RMS in SCRM and supply chain strategies (SCS) in HL literature, a framework is developed and used to review published case studies in HL.

The study finds that humanitarian actors use a number of the strategies proposed in the framework, particularly those related to strategic stocks, postponement, and collaboration. Strategies related to sourcing and procurement, however, especially those on supplier relationships, seem to be lacking in both research and practice.

The study is based on secondary data and could be further developed through case studies based on primary data. Future studies should explore the generalisability of the findings.

Practitioners can use the framework to identify potential new SCS and how strategies can be combined. Findings can help them to understand the abnormal risks of main concern, how they may impact normal risks, and provide ideas on how to tackle trade-offs between different risks.

The results can support improvements in humanitarian supply chains, which will provide affected people with rapid, cost-efficient, and better-adapted responses.

The paper connects SCRM and HL to develop a framework and suggests propositions on how humanitarian actors can mitigate supply chain risks. Questioning the focus on strategic stock it suggests complementary or alternative strategies for improving logistics preparedness.

To meet the rising global needs, the humanitarian community has signed off on making a strategic change toward more localisation, which commonly refers to the empowerment of national and local actors in humanitarian assistance. However, to this date, actual initiatives for localisation are rare. To enhance understanding of the phenomenon, the authors explore localisation of logistics preparedness capacities and obstacles to its implementation. The authors particularly take the perspective of the international humanitarian organisation (IHO) community as they are expected to implement the localisation strategy.

A phenomenon-driven, exploratory and qualitative study was conducted. Data collection included in-depth interviews with 28 experienced humanitarian professionals.

The findings showed the ambiguity inherent in the localisation strategy with largely different views on four important dimensions. Particularly, the interviewees differ about strengthening external actors or internal national/local offices. The resulting framework visualises the gap between strategy formulation and implementation, which forms major obstacles to the localisation aims.

Further research is required to support the advancement of localisation of logistics preparedness capacities. Important aspects for future research include triangulation of results, other stakeholder perspectives and the influence of context.

The authors add to the important debate surrounding localisation by offering remedies to overcoming obstacles to strategy implementation. Further, the authors’ proposed framework offers a language to precisely describe the ways in which IHOs (should) view localisation of logistics preparedness capacities and its operationalisation.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first academic article on localisation within the humanitarian logistics context.

This “impact pathways” paper argues that operations and supply chain management (OSCM) could help address the worsening drug shortage problem in high-income countries. This significant societal problem poses difficult challenges to stakeholders given the complex and dynamic nature of drug supply chains. OSCM scholars are well positioned to provide answers, introducing new research directions for OSCM in the process.

To substantiate this, the authors carried out a review of stakeholder reports from six European countries and the academic literature.

There is little academic research and no fundamental agreement among stakeholders about causes of shortages. Stakeholders have suggested many government measures, but little evidence exists on their comparative cost-effectiveness.

The authors discuss three pathways of impactful research on drug shortages to which OSCM could contribute: (1) Developing an evidence-based system view of drug shortages; (2) Studying the comparative cost-effectiveness of key government interventions; (3) Bringing supply chain risk management into the government and economics perspectives and vice versa. Our study provides a baseline for future COVID-19-related research on this topic.

This paper links supply chain risk management to medicine supply chains to explore the role of policymakers in employing supply chain risk management strategies (SCRMS) to reduce generic medicine shortages.

Using secondary data supplemented with primary data, the authors map and compare seven countries' SCRMS for handling shortage risks in their paracetamol supply chains before and during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consistent with recent research, the study finds that policymakers had implemented few SCRMS specifically for responding to disruptions caused by COVID-19. However, shortages were largely avoided since multiple strategies for coping with business-as-usual disruptions had been implemented prior to the pandemic. The authors did find that SCRMS implemented during COVID-19 were not always aligned with those implemented pre-pandemic. The authors also found that policymakers played both direct and indirect roles.

Combining longitudinal secondary data with interviews sheds light on how, regardless of the level of preparedness during normal times, SCRMS can be leveraged to avert shortages in abnormal times. However, the problem is highly complex, which warrants further research.

Supply chain professionals and policymakers in the healthcare sector can use the findings when developing preparedness and response plans.

The insights developed can help policymakers improve the availability of high-volume generic medicines in (ab)normal times.

The authors contribute to prior SCRM research in two ways. First, the authors operationalize SCRMS in the medicine supply chain context in (ab)normal times, thereby opening avenues for future research on SCRM in this context. Second, the authors develop insights on the role policymakers play and how they directly implement and indirectly influence the adoption of SCRMS. Based on the study findings, the authors develop a framework that captures the diverse roles of policymakers in SCRM.

An unprecedented scale of human migration has lead humanitarians to view camps as long-term settlements rather than temporary holding facilities. The purpose of this paper is to increase the understanding of and identify challenges with this proposed new approach to camp design.

Based on the camp design literature, the authors developed an interview guide and checklist for data collection. A multi-site case study and within- and cross-case analysis was then conducted.

The findings suggest that the proposed new approach is implemented only to a limited extent, and mostly in a stepwise manner. As camps mature, there is a shift toward the new approach, but most camps are established using the traditional top-down, temporary, and isolated approach.

The findings are based on four camps in four different countries and do not provide an exhaustive global coverage.

The insights the authors derived and the challenges identified from the empirical evidence can be used to better plan future camps.

The results can support improvements in camp design, thus alleviating suffering for both refugees and host communities, particularly in developing countries. In particular, the trade-off between a permanent solution and the temporary must be accounted for.

The study contributes to the literature by developing and proposing a conceptual framework to camp design. The cross-case analysis provides an initial understanding and categorization of challenges with implementing the new approach. It also suggests an evolutionary perspective of camp design.

In the literature authors state that there is a positive relation between supply chain integration (SCI) and performance. They claim that this relation is widely discussed and supported empirically. Other authors, however, suggest that integration might be more difficult in practice than in theory, that it should be differentiated and that it is more rhetoric than reality. As integration has been core of logistics and supply chain management since the 1980s, the purpose of this paper is to investigate these somewhat contradictory statements and analyse prior studies regarding definitions and measures of integration and performance as well as the reported empirical evidence on their relation.

Based on an extensive and systematic review of integration articles within four highly ranked academic journals in logistics, supply chain and operations management, this paper presents and discusses the results of prior empirical studies on relations between integration and performance.

The analysis of the relevant articles indicates that empirical evidence cannot permit to clearly conclude and that integration as well as performance is defined, operationalised and measured in different and often limited ways. This might be a problem and the paper concludes with a provoking question of whether SCI might be the Emperors' New Suit of business.

The paper's departure point is a controversial hypothesis: the contribution of SCI is not as obvious as logistics and supply chain researchers usually think. The rigorous selection and analysis of previous studies contributes with systematic knowledge within an important question.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse papers studying the link between supply chain integration (SCI) and performance, and to discuss reported empirical evidence relating to this fundamental question for logistics and supply chain management.

A systematic analysis of 38 papers published in nine important journals in logistics, supply chain and operations management during the period 2000‐2006 is offered. Using a multidimensional framework to sort and classify selected papers, structured results are provided for the purpose of contributing to discussion of the topic.

More SCI does not always improve performance. Definitions and measures of SCI and performance are diverse to the extent that a conclusion such as “the more (SCI) the better (the performance) cannot be drawn”. On the contrary more empirical research, with use of clear definitions and good measures, are needed. The conclusions drawn from the analytical literature review provide a basis from which further research can be developed, both in respect of research approaches, definitions of main concepts and the choice of theoretical basis.

Additional journals could be included. The framework could be more detailed. More details on SCI and performance measures, as well as the items used in the papers, could be provided and discussed.

Results encourage researchers and practitioners to be more cautious concerning SCI and its impact on performance and to have a more conscious and differentiated view of SCI.

Through a rigorous analysis of prevailing research, the paper questions a common assumption in business logistics and SCM. Propositions for further research are suggested.