Supply Coordination when “Hell breaks loose”
Examples of logistics [and logistics strategies] in case of natural disasters
By Simon Drews
Dear Reader,
this is a very interesting topic indeed. Especially, as you can view it from two different perspectives. The person who needs the goods (demand) in the case of a natural disaster or the people and organizations that need to administer it to the people in need (supplier). Moreover, taking into account the fact that the number of reported disasters were skyrocketing since the beginning of the 20th Century (see the picture).
“A calamitous event, especially one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship, as a flood, airplane crash, or business failure.”
Definition of a disaster
As for the challenges. We are talking about human life here! And Logistics play a major role in saving those lives. If something goes wrong, people may die.
From the Tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina, the Influenza “swine flu” epidemic 2009 until to more recent disasters. Fact is, the “need to effectively and efficiently provide emergency supplies and services is increasing all over the world”.
I found a very nice research study from 2011 called “Strategies for Logistics in Case of a Natural Disaster” and I want to point out some of the major strategies from that article. However, as I found it very interesting and informative to read, I advise you to read through it to the end. You can find the link in the sources below.
We want to focus on three fundamental strategies an organization could employ to respond to natural disasters.
Prepositioning
It is appropriate to use this strategy when the lead-time to respond with supplies exceeds the time frame in which the supplies are needed.
It is and was a very successful used strategy used by the military and received a lot attention in recent times. For example, Campbell and Jones (2011) described a method for determining where to preposition supplies in anticipation of disaster, considering several different scenarios.
It would be a very desirable logistics strategy for disaster events like, for example, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina because it would shorten the lead-time to provide supplies needed.
A problem however is that it would be necessary to locate the supplies outside the potential disaster impact zones (something that is not always feasible), and a prepositioning investment could be very large. It is very hard and costly to maintain a large stock of food, water, and other emergency supplies for a long period of time. Especially in countries where the majority is poor and the public institutions in general are influenced by a high level of corruption. In short. The key questions are where to position the stocks and who shall receive treatments.
Proactive deployment
These alternative focuses on the early deployment of assets in advance. What does that mean. Well, when a hurricane approaches the coast, the federal government officials could mobilize food, water, and temporary shelters and stage them close to, but not in, the expected disaster zone. The result would be that, when the supplies are needed shortly afterwards, the lead-time necessary to deliver them is strongly reduced.
Hurricane Katrina for examples was expected to “make a landfall” in New Orleans days in advance of the disaster. That offered time for the proactive deployment of supplies. However, public authorities tended to be reactive rather than proactive and did not effectively preposition medical supplies prior to the hurricane’s landfall.
Phased Deployment
Last but not least, phased deployment of assets refers to timing the delivery of inventory to a disaster area as it is needed and also in the quantity in which it is needed.
It is somewhat analogous to “just in time” inventory control and has the advantage of not committing excess inventory to a specific region before knowing precise types and quantities of supplies needed. Something that spares resources and money.
The phased deployment approach also prevents that the disaster zone becomes to saturated with already provided “goods and services” as those might otherwise reduce the overall effectiveness of the disaster response.
Think about it. You deliver to zones where there is perhaps inadequate infrastructure or you just have limitations in personnel, handling equipment, storage space, or some combination of all three.
For example. The earthquake in Haiti in 2010 featured a lack of runway capacity, as well as equipment. And that slowed the movement of supplies and specialized personnel such as physicians, nurses, and search and rescue teams.
Moreover, large capacity limitations at the ports, in terms of the number of containers that could be processed and the amount of available dry warehouse space, posed a big problem. So, it was just undesirable to push supplies into the area because the ports were not capable of handling the flow of materiel at all.
Also, after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the supplies were not a problem. A lot was donated by the world’s richest countries. But there also, was only one airstrip and one forklift to get the supplies to the zones where they were needed. So, you see in those cases, when disaster strikes an area with for example limited port capacity (or infrastructure in general), the phased deployment of supplies is not only prudent, but necessary, in order to prevent the ending of the flow of supplies.
Conclusion
It is very nice to talk about Business Logistics in general. To boost the effectiveness and efficiency of your business and to maximize customer satisfaction. But you must realize that in those cases, “when hell breaks loose”, people could die and that implies you must have a fitting logistic strategy.
Thank you so much for reading
Simon Drews
Sources:
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario