The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities
Abstract
Supply chain disruptions and the associated operational and financial risks represent the most pressing concern facing firms that compete in today's global marketplace. Extant research has not only confirmed the costly nature of supply chain disruptions but has also contributed relevant insights on such related issues as supply chain risks, vulnerability, resilience, and continuity. In this conceptual note, we focus on a relatively unexplored issue, asking and answering the question of how and why one supply chain disruption would be more severe than another. In doing so, we argue, de facto, that supply chain disruptions are unavoidable and, as a consequence, that all supply chains are inherently risky. Employing a multiple‐method, multiple‐source empirical research design, we derive novel insights, presented as six propositions that relate the severity of supply chain disruptions (i) to the three supply chain design characteristics of density, complexity, and node criticality and (ii) to the two supply chain mitigation capabilities of recovery and warning. These findings not only augment existing knowledge related to supply chain risk, vulnerability, resilience, and business continuity planning but also call into question the wisdom of pursuing such practices as supply base reduction, global sourcing, and sourcing from supply clusters.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation
Grant, R. M. (1991) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41166664 · Cited by 9,699
The critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380 · cited 1×
“By using multiple sources and multiple methods, we intend to reduce the potential for single-source bias and for common-method bias (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
Cited by
Ivanov, D. (2020) · Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922 · Cited by 2,280
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12076 · Cited by 1,682
Olivetti, E. A., Ceder, G., Gaustad, G. G., & Fu, X. (2017) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2017.08.019 · Cited by 1,572
Firm's resilience to supply chain disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002 · Cited by 1,400
Self-citationDubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C. (2021) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820 · Cited by 958
Metadata
- Authors
- Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-156
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W1969287756
- Cited by
- 1,685
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 77.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x
- The paper
- Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities. Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.