The shortcomings of the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile were fully exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they must be remedied before the next large-scale public health emergency. This will require government and industry to work together to build backup capacity and standby capability, not just more inventory.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Thanks to emerging technologies like 3-D printing, manufacturers can offer consumers customized products and do so with unprecedented speed. Intrigued by a new product you saw in a YouTube video? Well, someday soon you may be able to personalize it, order it via the company's website, and have it in your hands in a matter of days. But to enable this phenomenon at scale, an entirely new model of supply chain is required.

The authors note that companies want to protect their supply chains from serious and costly disruptions, but the most obvious solutions -increasing inventory, adding capacity at different locations and having multiple suppliers -undermine supply chain cost efficiency. Surveys have shown that while managers appreciate the impact of supply chain disruptions, they have done very little to prevent such incidents or mitigate their impacts. The authors argue that supply chain efficiency, which is directed at improving financial performance, is different from supply chain resilience, in which the goal is risk reduction. Although both require dealing with risks, recurrent risks (such as demand fluctuations) require companies to focus on efficiency in improving the way they match supply and demand, while disruptive risks require companies to build resilience despite additional cost. Recently, managers have become much better at managing global supply chains through improved planning and execution and building operational reserves such as production capacity and inventory. However, the authors argue that reliance on sole-source suppliers, common parts and centralized inventories has left companies vulnerable to disruptive risks. Although sourcing from or outsourcing to distant low-cost locations and eliminating excess capacity and redundant suppliers can make supply chains more cost-efficient, they also make supply chains more vulnerable. How should managers reduce their supply chain's exposure to disruptive risks without giving up hard-earned gains in performance from improved supply chain efficiency?

Many companies are now good at managing costs and wringing out manufacturing efficiencies. The TQM movement and the disciplines of Six Sigma have seen to that. But the discipline so often brought to the cost side of the business equation is found far less commonly on the revenue side. The authors describe how a global manufacturer of industrial equipment, which they call Acme Inc., recently applied Six Sigma to one major revenue-related activity: the price-setting process. It seemed to Acme's executives that pricing closely resembled many manufacturing processes. So, with the help of a Six Sigma black belt from manufacturing, a manager from Acme's pricing division recruited a team to carry out the five Six Sigma steps: Define what constitutes a defect. At Acme, a defect was an item sold at an unauthorized price. Gather data and prepare it for analysis. That involved mapping out the existing pricing-agreement process. Analyze the data. The team identified the ways in which people failed to carry out or assert effective control at each stage. Recommend modifications to the existing process. The team sought to decrease the number of unapproved prices without creating an onerous approval apparatus. Create controls. This step enabled Acme to sustain and extend the improvements in its pricing procedures. As a result of the changes, Acme earned $6 million in additional revenue on one product line alone in the six months following implementation--money that went straight to the bottom line. At the same time, the company removed much of the organizational friction that had long bedeviled its pricing process. Other companies can benefit from Acme's experience as they look for ways to exercise price control without alienating customers.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Natural disasters, labor disputes, terrorism, and more mundane risks can seriously disrupt or delay the flow of material, information, and cash through an organization's supply chain. The authors assert that how well a company fares against such threats depends on its level of preparedness and the type of disruption. Each supply chain risk--forecasts, information systems, intellectual property, procurement, inventory, and capacity--has its own drivers and effective mitigation strategies. To avoid lost sales, increased costs, or both, managers need to tailor proven risk-reduction strategies to their organizations. Managing supply chain risk is difficult, however. Dell, Toyota, Motorola, and other leading manufacturers excel at identifying and neutralizing supply chain risks through a delicate balancing act: keeping inventory, capacity, and related elements at appropriate levels across the entire supply chain in a rapidly changing environment. Organizations can prepare for or avoid delays by "smart sizing" their capacity and inventory. The manager serves as a kind of financial portfolio manager, seeking to achieve the highest achievable profits (reward) for varying levels of supply chain risk. The authors recommend a powerful "What if?" team exercise called "stress testing" to identify potentially weak links in the supply chain. Armed with this shared understanding, companies can then select the best mitigation strategy.