Value-for-free

Despite there being continued discussion about the definition of mitigation,a common understanding is that there are three different paradigms – the debate on definition (a topic as a contestable difference of definition); the orientation gap theme (a factor as a gap between the responses of a section of an organisation and the actual form of disruptions); and the procedures theme (a matter as an event, tendency or situation which generates, or has the ability to originate, a significant disruption affecting the entity in a supply chain).

However, there is no such wide consensus about how to define disruption mitigation itself. Disruption mitigation appears to be commonly defined as a risk preparation specifically planned to enable an organisation to avoid and not simply respond to disruption or disturbance issues which have the potential to impact on the organisation (Caffi 1999; Martinovski 2000; Weibel & Hansman 2005; Zsidisin & Smith 2005). In addition, Faisal et al. (2006) suggest mitigation is also an understanding of risks, while Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) recommended mitigation as being a capability, instead of the effort to minimise risks (see Table 3-7).

Martinovski (2005) is one of the few to suggest mitigation also has linguistic values, and is a social phenomenon rather than a cognitive perception on risk events. The other common conceptions of mitigation can be identified from the procedures or processes of mitigating a risk. These include risk prevention (Kunreuther 2001; Pinto & Wayne 2006; Rundmo & Moen 2006; Boehm-Davis & Remington 2009), risk assessment (Sinha et al. 2004; Zsidisin et al. 2004; Fiorucci et al. 2005; Alan 2006; Merrick & Dorp 2006), monitoring and controlling (Ward 1999; Ward 2003; Comfort 2005; Denis 2005; Manuj & Mentzer 2008), financial allocation (Kunreuther 2001; Hendricks & Singhal 2005; Laurie & John 2005; Papadakis 2006), risk evaluation (Drongelen 2001; Arns et al. 2002; Young & Hobbs 2002; Rundmo & Moen 2006), and risk policy (Arreola-Risa & DeCroix 1998; Fischer et al. 1999; Comfort 2005; Denis 2005; Kurosawa 2006; Lewis et al. 2006; David 2007; Li-ping et al. 2007; Michaelowa & Krause 2008).

There is an observable overlap between the two methods (definition and procedures), and both have supported variations of mitigation definition and procedures beyond the specific risk events in a supply chain application. The mitigation mechanism (Grabowski & Roberts 1999; Haigh & Holt 2000; Snediker et al. 2008) that combines risk policy (Yeh et al. 2008) as a business response to adverse disruption risks and the plan to refocus from reaction to preparation, is driven by the idea that identifying and managing risks early improves supply chain entity capacity to handle disruptions and their consequences rather than responding to them ex post facto.

Table 3-7. The concept and approach of mitigation from the literature

Research focus Definition Gap Procedures

Knowledge and perception on

mitigation

„Mitigation is a cognitive but also a linguistic and a social phenomenon. It is applied to describe both expressions of politeness and reactions to stressors, such as blame. Another way of integrating potentiality and actuality is the distinction between preventive and active coping strategies/discourse moves‟ (Martinovski et al.

2005, p. 1)

Understanding the risks and minimising the impact by addressing, e.g. probability and direct impact (Faisal et al. 2006, p. 535)

The hierarchical structure of identifying risks, assessing, implementing solutions, conducting effect analysis, and continuously monitoring risks (Sinha et al. 2004)

Vulnerability management for reducing losses from natural disasters and allocating financial resources to victims of various devastating events (Kunreuther 2001)

The activities in gathering, interpreting, reasoning and communicating the results of risk assessment (Marczyk et al. 2003)

Priority programs to prevent and evaluate risk

consequences (Rundmo & Moen 2006)

A set of preparation and action plan

“Capability of the firm, both internally and in

conjunction with its key suppliers and customers, to adapt or respond in a speedy manner to marketplace changes as well as to potential and actual disruptions” (Braunscheidel & Suresh 2009)

Strategies to manage the exposure of the risks‟ effects (Weibel & Hansman 2005)

Robust policy and strategic options to achieve long- term goals in reducing natural-based risks (Yeh et al. 2008)

A preparation which various possible risks are assessed, reviewed, evaluated and adopted (Martin et al. 2009)

Mitigation involves participation, which is a more general strategy for practice and change of corporate social responsibility (Maloni & Brown 2006)

A set of procedures to undertake static risk assessment, dynamic risk assessment and real time risk assessment (Fiorucci et al. 2005)

A set of activities in monitoring, and controlling progress and developing plans on a rolling basis in a risk management process (Ward 1999)

Actual responses

Generally as weakening or reducing of interactional variables, which affects allocation and rearranging of resources and obligations to reduce risks (Caffi 1999)

The decreasing of vulnerability (Martinovski 2000)

„Mitigation means attempting to reduce the damage caused by disruption by means of a warning system‟ (Pereira 2009, p. 374)

An effort to develop recognizable mechanisms that increase structure fluidity of an organisation in handling risks

(Grabowski & Roberts 1999)

Responsibility involves attribution variables such as instigating factors, sharedness, target, visibility, choice, propagation,and capacity (Martinovski & Marsella 2003)

„Activities to limit access to disaster prone areas, create physical appurtenances in protecting community, to educate populace to take action in reducing the likelihood, and to replace property loss during a disaster‟ (Fischer et al.

1999, p. 715)

Actions to realise comprehensive policy in spite of the uncertainty in technologies, climate dynamics, and

socioeconomic conditions (Kurosawa 2006)

Thus, mitigation as risk policy eventually led to understanding mitigation as a preparation strategy to minimise disruption risks in the supply chain. This includes the capability of understanding actual programs to reduce risks by a comprehensive preparation stage in which the assessment, review, adoption, and evaluation process are undertaken (Marczyk et al. 2003; Martin et al. 2009).

Over the period of the mitigation research, social expectation and progress beyond the purely risk management approach has arisen. Martinovski and Marsella (2003), Sjoberg (2003) and Maloni and Brown (2006) suggest any particular issue may be adopted and customised by a number of novel community-based responses in supply chain risk management. These include risk communication, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability management. Given the mitigation studies in the literature, all results are specifically intended to establish a comprehensive review of the entire risk environment, but the involvement of entities in their upstream and downstream link, including mitigation or risk policy in supply chain networking, are very rarely elaborated. Studies by Weibel and Hansman (2005), Nilsen and Olsen (2007), Gojovic

et al. (2009), and Wagner (2009) attempt to develop the simultaneous nature of

disruption management and a network supply chain. However, these networking-based mitigations only consider a specific location in a supply chain not as an interactive set of processes in a supply chain network.

The current study therefore intends to explore the effective mitigation and disruption management approach not just as an internal response of an organisation but across the full range of relationships that link and coordinate disruption management processes and functions in supply chain activities.