LOGISTICS IN CRISIS SITUATIONS - PART 2

In the first part of this article, the motivation and relevance for the development of this research project were presented, as well as an overview of the proposed framework in its three phases (Preparation, Immediate Response and Reconstruction).

This second part concludes the article, detailing the proposed theoretical framework through the presentation of the processes involved and a discussion on performance measurement.

Processes

The proposed framework is aligned with the traditional concepts of Business Administration. A process is the set of activities carried out to generate previously defined results, from the moment of need to the delivery of the product. These activities must, in a multidisciplinary way, provide synchronization between strategy, infrastructure and performance objectives. Any organization, small or large, constitutes a living system, in which entities (suppliers, customers, employees, products/services/information) and basic functions (production, marketing and sales, accounting and finance, human resources) coexist and interact. and logistics). For the success of operations to be achieved, it is necessary to identify and plan concretely and adequately these activities, determine their priority and describe the respective procedures.

Figure 4 – Proposed benchmark – Overview

The problems associated with emergency actions involving crisis situations are, in short, large and complex. Dividing these major events into a series of small interconnected episodes and seeking a solution for each of them by sector, it will be possible for those involved to make more efficient decisions and actions within the scope of that situation.

The framework for processes was developed after reviewing the academic literature and the experience obtained through case studies in recent crisis situations, such as Hurricane Katrina (USA – August 2005), the rains in the city of Rio de Janeiro (April 2010), the rains in the mountainous region of the State of Rio de Janeiro (January 2011), and contact with professionals in the area.

Additionally, the proposed framework is aligned with the concept of Business Functions, which are idealized conceptual structures that serve to describe the mission of an organization. Once they have been properly defined and decomposed, they remain stable over time, even in the face of reorganizations. In this way, the functions represent a point of reference (common concepts) when describing different businesses that would otherwise exhibit significant variations.

The activities that make up a function are related to each other by “affinity”, because they work a common group of data entities or because they are sequential or even parallel in carrying out the work associated with a common final result. Proper functional decomposition should take into account established principles and guidelines, which may be, for example:

• Functions must be identifiable and definable in terms of activities, responsibilities and attributions;
• Functions should be as independent as possible from existing organizational structures;
• The functions must, as a group, form a set that is essential to the lifecycle of the “system”;
• Each subgroup resulting from the functional decomposition must represent a “socio-technological subsystem” by itself (referring to people and technology).

Process is defined as the complete sequence of a business behavior, triggered by some event and that produces a significant result for the business and that, preferably, has a focus on the customer. If a function is composed of activities that represent an organization's role or reason for existing, business processes perform these activities in such a way that, individually or in combination, they accomplish the work of a given function. The activity therefore represents the functional unit (which will serve as a component of business processes, in a cross-functional view) that allows the identification of common utilities and, therefore, opportunities for functional reuse.

In addition to the concepts previously presented, the proposed reference model is mainly based on the phases proposed by Kovács and Spens (2007) and the conceptual model 21st Century Logistics, by Bowersox, Closs and Stank (1999).

For each phase of logistics management in a crisis situation, three contexts or dimensions (Operational, Planning/Control and Behavioral) obtained from the 21st Century Logistics framework are adapted to manage these situations.

The proposed framework, therefore, identifies processes, restrictions, skills and resources, called “items” of each phase, which seek to improve the performance of logistics management in crisis situations.

Regarding the Preparation phase, the processes and activities considered seek information for the following questions:

• Is there any kind of survey on the pattern and risks of natural disasters in the region?
• Are there efforts to prepare a response in case a disaster occurs?
• Are the available equipment and resources adequate?
• Are processes standardized and streamlined?
• How was the capacity of the structure designed?
• Are there agreements with suppliers of critical materials?
• How is information managed?
• What are the means of communication available?
• Are there alert systems to communicate the population about possible occurrences?
• Is there any kind of collaboration in the planning phase between organizations providing crisis relief?
• Are there predefined metrics to measure performance?
• Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined?
• Are there information and resource sharing agreements between organizations?

Table 2 presents, for each context (Operational, Planning and Control, and Behavioral) during the Preparation phase, the details of the processes and activities necessary to respond to the main questions of this phase.

Table 2 – Proposed framework – Preparation phase processes

For the Immediate Response stage, the processes and activities seek to address the following questions:

• How is the initial disaster assessment carried out?
• Are organizations capable of providing an adequate response?
• Are organizations demonstrating flexibility in responding to disaster?
• Does the process flow happen efficiently?
• How does the structure adapt to crisis events?
• What is the role of suppliers during the response?
• Is it possible to rely on the operational capacity of suppliers to support crisis management?
• How is supplier management carried out?
• How is information managed?
• What means of communication are used?
• Is any alert system used to warn the population?
• Is there collaboration between relief or immediate relief organizations?
• Is performance evaluated within organizations?
• Are the defined roles and responsibilities respected during the crisis situation?
• Are information and resources shared between organizations?

Table 3 presents, for each context (Operational, Planning and Control, and Behavioral) during the Response phase, the details of the processes and activities necessary to respond to the main questions of this stage.

Table 3 – Proposed Framework – Immediate Response Phase Processes

Finally, for the Reconstruction phase, specific processes and activities seek to answer the following questions:

• Is there an elaborate reconstruction/recovery plan for the region?
• Is there planning for the participation of responsible organizations in the recovery phase?
• How does the crisis management structure respond to the needs of the Reconstruction phase?
• How is the participation of suppliers?
• How is information managed at this stage?
• What means of communication are used?
• Is there a plan for the revision/recovery of the population alert systems?
• Is there collaboration between organizations at this stage?
• Do you seek to improve performance evaluation/measurement?
• Have roles and responsibilities been reviewed?
• Do you seek to improve the sharing of information and resources between organizations?

Table 4 summarizes, for each context during the Recovery phase, the details of the processes and activities needed to address the major questions of this phase.

Table 4 – Proposed Framework – Reconstruction Phase Processes

Thus, at a comprehensive level, the proposed framework seeks to anticipate the questions at each stage and proposes specific activities that must be prioritized so that they are resolved.

Performance

Despite the importance of humanitarian and disaster response supply chains, measurement systems and performance measures have not been developed and implemented in this area when compared to developments achieved mainly in the business sector. This is a major limitation of this area of ​​knowledge. Without proper performance measurement and comparative histories, theoretical organizational learning and operational improvements are compromised.

Several factors make measuring performance a difficult task for organizations in crisis situations. Mainly during the Response stage, the very characteristics of the operating environment increase the level of complexity. The lack of systematic, standardized and aligned instruments and measurement processes with all the organizations involved prevents, for example, humanitarian aid agencies from acquiring a perception of their own operational performance and from retaining the lessons of previous events for continuous improvement. .

In this way, effective performance evaluation systems would help professionals in the area in their decisions, would contribute to improving the effectiveness of relief operations and would demonstrate the performance of the chain, thus increasing transparency and accountability in response to disasters.

Some promising efforts in the development of performance measurement systems, specific for logistics in a crisis situation, consider adaptations of existing performance evaluation models in corporate supply chains, observing the specific characteristics of the humanitarian environment. Among the performance dimensions that are commonly highlighted are resource utilization indicators, performance (efficiency) and flexibility indicators. In this way, current efforts for performance measurement systems seek to determine the levels of efficiency, as well as the ability to respond and adapt in a dynamically unstable environment with a high level of restrictions.

The example of the Red Cross Logistics Department stands out. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (FIRC) was founded in 1919, and currently coordinates activities among the 186 societies within the movement. At the international level, the federation leads and organizes, in cooperation with national societies, relief missions for large-scale emergencies. FIRC is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Red Cross developed a tool called the Development Indicator Tool to guide and monitor the continuous improvement in the performance of its regional logistics units on a daily basis, integrating central distribution points with local points. It was designed based on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and the indicators are assigned to the perspectives of Customer Service, Financial Control, Procedural Adherence and Innovation and Learning, dimensions that are partially interconnected by the tool.

The goals of the Development Indicator Tool are: (1) to help keep you on track and keep the organization on top of any improvements during the year, highlighting the areas and projects that most impact performance; (2) promote the exchange of good practices and generate data for strategic decision-making; and (3) provide more transparency to donors by informing them of the organization's efficiency and continuous improvement.

After reviewing the literature and carrying out relevant case studies, this study proposes the set of performance evaluation measures for the logistical management of crisis situations shown in Table 5. We emphasize that the dimensions are generic and comprehensive and that specific metrics need to be developed and adapted for each emergency situation.

Table 5 – Proposed benchmark – Performance

Despite present efforts, the challenge for performance systems lies in considering specific issues such as: types and amounts of resources, methods of supplying and storing materials, tracking tools and alternative forms of transport for regions in crisis, specialization of teams participants in the Immediate Response stage, and the cooperation plan between teams. Such questions are central, however, difficult to be incorporated and developed.

Conclusion

The objective of this article was to present the challenges related to the logistical management of crisis situations and the preliminary results of a line of research developed at Coppead/UFRJ. The present study seeks to propose a theoretical framework that helps aid and response organizations in emergency situations to achieve better results.

Systems in a crisis situation can be seen as supply chains operating in scenarios of extreme disruption. Operations need to be performed in an environment of supreme flexibility and agility in the chain, to accommodate uncertain and dynamically changing needs.

The research has an exploratory character. In general, the proposed reference model seeks to investigate the critical resources, skills and capabilities for effective crisis logistics management, with a view to improving the processes of the organizations involved. The model is still under development, and constructive criticism and knowledge sharing are extremely relevant.

References

Beamon, Benita M. & Burcu Balcik. 2008. Performance Measurement in Humanitarian Relief Chains. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(1): 4.

Blecken, A., B. Hellingrath, W. Dangelmaier, & S. Schulz. 2009. The Humanitarian Supply Chain Process Reference Model. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 12(4): 391.

Bowersox, DJ; Closs, DJ; Stank, TP 2009. 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality. Council of Logistics Management (CLM): Oak Brook, IL.

Ferreira da Silva, Luiza de Castro. 2011. Humanitarian Logistics Management: A Case Study on the April 2010 Rains in the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro. Dissertation (Master in Administration) – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Coppead Institute of Administration.

Kovács, Gyöngyi & Karen M. Spens. 2007. Humanitarian Logistics in Disaster Relief Operations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(2): 99.

Lee, H. 2004. Building the Triple-A Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, October 2004:2.

Taylor, D. & S. Pettit. 2009. A Consideration of the Relevance of Lean Supply Chain Concepts for Humanitarian Aid Provision. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 12(4): 430.

Van der Laan, E., M. De Brito, P. Van Fenema, & S. Vermaesen. 2009. Managing Information Cycles for Intra-Organisational Coordination of Humanitarian Logistics. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 12(4): 362.

Van der Laan, E., M. De Brito, & D. Vergunst. 2009. Performance Measurement in Humanitarian Supply Chains. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 13(1): 22.

Van Wassenhove, LN 2006. Humanitarian aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(5): 475.