Ideally, disruptions can be minimised if effective disruption management systems are in place, if senior managers understand how to handle them, and if the cycle of disruptions is forecasted prior to occurring (Yu & Qi 2004; Gaonkar & Viswanadham 2007; Handfield et al. 2008). Therefore, strategic responses to disruptions need to
consider the complete cycle process to decrease disruption consequences and their propagation effect. Studies on the cycle process of a disruption indicate that the investigations of a crisis lifecycle have provided the foundation for researchers in discovering the disruption risk related events (see Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Categorisation of crisis and disruption lifecycle
Source: Adapted from Gurning and Cahoon (2010)
The research on risk lifecycles generally focuses on crisis management (Fink 1986; Barton 1993; Shrivastava 1993; Mitroff 1994; Pearson & Clair 1998; Lauge et al.
2009) and disruption related events (Blackhurst et al. 2004; Tomlin 2006; Handfield et al. 2008). In addition, the risk lifecycles analysis framework identifies either a crisis or disruption based on an event, the response and the combination of these two (event and response) as a short cycle. Hence, in order to identify that a maritime disruption has occurred, the recognition of disruptive events such as delays, deviations, stoppages, and disasters will enable entities in a supply chain to implement a mitigation strategy effectively.
Fink (1986): Barton (1993); Mitroff (1994) Roberts (1994);
* Prodormal * Detection * Pre-event
Crisis * Acute * Probing / prevention * Emergency/intermediate phase
* Chronic * Containment * Long-term phase
* Resolution * Recovery
* Learning Lauge et al.(2009)
Shrivastava (1993): * Pre crisis
* Cause * Crisis
* Consequence * Post crisis
* Caution * Coping
* Normal * Reaction Blackhurst (2004); Handfield et al. (2008)
* Failure * Recovery * Discovery
* Recovery
* Event occurs * Damage assessment Pinto and Wayne (2006); Lewis et al. (2006)
* Plan activated * Disaster assessment * Pre disruption
* Critical processes * Post disruption
resumed
Tomlin (2006; 2009)
Response based cycle Event based cycle
Orientation Short cycle
British Standard (2009) Disruption
Fink (1986) appears to be the first study exploring the behaviours of a risk-related event called crises with four major stages namely prodormal, acute, chronic, and crisis resolution. The investigation of Fink which is mainly derived from medical cases is elaborated on by Gottschalk (1993), Parlar and Perry (1996), Pearson and Clair (1998), and Coombs (2004) in various general public applications including transport operations. During these four stages, unexpected negative events including their causes can be observed by a cognitive assessment approach, which in turn impacts on only one crisis resolution. Using industrial accidents (significant and non-significant) as the research context, Williams and Treadaway (1992) and Shrivastava (1993) report that an internal controllable catastrophe (which has a high consequence such as infrastructure failure or fire due to outdated equipment) led to higher caution and responsibility by an organisation. Shrivastava (1993), Manion and Evan (2002), Sriramachari (2005) and Chang et al. (2007) define the crisis cycle as having the four stages of cause, consequence, caution, and coping; and propose mitigation initiatives for industrial situations. However, these event based cycles on industrial accidents are limited to internals operation of an organisation and the industrial network beyond certain crisis cycles is not considered significantly in their research.
Three studies of response based cycles by Barton (1993), Mitroff (1994) and Seymour and Moore (2000) report that internal inadequate controllable responses resulted in worse risk reactions than external uncontrollable influences. Using natural disasters, Mitroff (1994) reveals that the external uncontrollable triggers (severe weather and earthquake) resulted in less resistance, greater support and higher cautions and response than the internal controllable cause (poor maintenance system). By providing five risk stages namely detection, probing/prevention, containment/damage containment, recovery, and learning, Barton (1993) and Mitroff (1994) find that the more a crisis is internally managed, the more responsible that entity is considered to be. Therefore, unlike the research by Fink (1986), the scope of the crisis lifecycles, as noted by Mitroff (1994), is more related to disaster-related responses rather than the cycle behaviour of the delay, deviation, and stoppage .
Similar to a natural disaster, a less complex crisis based on short cycle is proposed by Roberts (1994) and Lauge et al. (2009) who define risk-related events mainly into three
stages such as pre-crisis, crisis (emergency and intermediate phase), and post crisis. Their suggestions provide another perspective by providing a simple structure of a crisis cycle that was adopted by other researchers in exploring risk short cycle.
The importance of disruption risk lifecycles in supply chain studies was initiated by Blackhurst et al.(2004) and firstly explored the term of disruption in the study of short lifecycles. The study of Blackhurst et al.(2004) is followed by Handfield (2008). The study of Blakhurst et al. (2004) and Handfield et al. (2008) suggest two stages to the cycle of disruptive events namely discovery and recovery. In their studies, they also recommend the use of this cycle combined for disruptive events that occur recurrently. The other finding of Stephan and Christoph (2008) in relation to the short cycle process of disruptive events including studies of maritime disruptions is that the statistical dyadic conception is used for analysing the disruption risks into two main stages namely pre and post disruption periods. Research by Pinto and Wayne (2006), Lewis et al. (2006), may be cited as examples in which the assessment and response strategy of maritime interruptions are determined by two short cycle namely before and after the disturbances occurred along maritime operations.
Unlike the research on short cycles, the cycle investigations by Tomlin (2006, 2009), Kuster (2008), and Lauge et al. (2009) on disruption in the supply chain mainly discusses the combination of events such as delay and deviation and risk management strategies such as delay and deviation and focuses on risk management strategies. Tomlin (2006, 2009) proposes four stages starting from the normal condition to failures, reaction, and recovery prior to returning to normal condition again. The process of the disruption cycle of Tomlin (2006, 2009) focuses mainly on the combination of a disruption response phase with strategies taken in a short period of time and relating it to past events. Following the research of Tomlin (2006), the British Standards Institute (2009) identifies disruption as five stages namely, when the event occurs, damage assessment, disaster assessment, disaster declared plan activated, and the critical process resumed. However, the recommendation of the disruption cycle of BS25999 focuses on the application of a disastrous event.
The studies of risk lifecycles as assessed so far in this chapter do not take into consideration the interval periods and the tendencies of disruptive events investigated. Therefore, it can be argued that effective disruption management may be organised in advance of the actual realisation of the disruption. An early detection of the pre- disruption period can assist entities in the supply chain to significantly handle disruptions. In addition, during the post-disruption phase, senior managers may recognise why the disruption occurred and how to prevent it from happening again. Following the analysis of the cycles above, the pattern of crisis lifecycles recommended by Fink (1986), Barton (1993), and Mitrof (1994) and the British Standards Institute (2009) are assessed in the data collection process of this research using the stages of delay, deviation, stoppage and disaster for a maritime disruption. The disruption cycle as proposed by Blackhurst et al.(2004), Tomlin (2006), Handfield et al. (2008) will be used in the data collection process of this research to assess the maritime events of delay and deviation.