IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v22y2019i1p66-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing schedule disruptions in business processes of advanced logistics systems

Author

Listed:
  • Heimir Thorisson
  • Marwan Alsultan
  • Daniel Hendrickson
  • Thomas L. Polmateer
  • James H. Lambert

Abstract

Large‐scale logistics systems operate under uncertainties of schedule, cost, environmental impacts, reliability, and others rendering it critical for system operations to consider emergent and future conditions involving markets, technologies, environment, and organizations. Business process modeling is used widely to document the activities of an enterprise. Successful analysis of business processes requires explicit accounting for and evaluation of sources of potential disruptive risk. Previous research in the journal integrated risk identification to business process models. This paper creates a framework that evaluates the schedule disruption potential of identified sources of risk in logistics systems with the modeling of the associated business processes. The framework is demonstrated on a scheduling process at a marine container port. The methods first described in this paper should be integrated to software applications that diagram and analyze business processes of large‐scale systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Heimir Thorisson & Marwan Alsultan & Daniel Hendrickson & Thomas L. Polmateer & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Addressing schedule disruptions in business processes of advanced logistics systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 66-79, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:22:y:2019:i:1:p:66-79
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21471
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graeme D. Ruxton, 2006. "The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann--Whitney U test," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(4), pages 688-690, July.
    2. Heimir Thorisson & James H. Lambert & John J. Cardenas & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Resilience Analytics with Application to Power Grid of a Developing Region," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1268-1286, July.
    3. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    4. J Fernando Alvarez & Tore Longva & Erna S Engebrethsen, 2010. "A methodology to assess vessel berthing and speed optimization policies," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 12(4), pages 327-346, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    2. Benischke, Mirko H. & Guldiken, Orhun & Doh, Jonathan P. & Martin, Geoffrey & Zhang, Yanze, 2022. "Towards a behavioral theory of MNC response to political risk and uncertainty: The role of CEO wealth at risk," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    3. Wang, Shuaian & Meng, Qiang, 2012. "Liner ship route schedule design with sea contingency time and port time uncertainty," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 615-633.
    4. Kang, Wenjin & Tang, Ke & Wang, Ningli, 2023. "Financialization of commodity markets ten years later," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    5. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    7. K. Karthikeyan & S. Bharath & K. Ranjith Kumar, 2012. "An Empirical Study on Investors’ Perception towards Mutual Fund Products through Banks with Reference to Tiruchirapalli City, Tamil Nadu," Vision, , vol. 16(2), pages 101-108, June.
    8. Nicola Paltrinieri & Nicolas Dechy & Ernesto Salzano & Mike Wardman & Valerio Cozzani, 2012. "Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1404-1419, August.
    9. Kim Young Joo & Skibniewski Miroslaw J., 2020. "Unsuccessful bids: Coefficient of variation of bids as indicator of project risk," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 2193-2199, January.
    10. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2012. "Community Resilience and Decision Theory Challenges for Catastrophic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1919-1934, November.
    11. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    12. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Wallert, John & Ekman, Urban & Westman, Eric & Madison, Guy, 2017. "The worst performance rule with elderly in abnormal cognitive decline," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 9-17.
    14. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    15. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    17. Peter Andersson & Pernilla Ivehammar, 2017. "Dynamic route planning in the Baltic Sea Region – A cost-benefit analysis based on AIS data," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 19(4), pages 631-649, December.
    18. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    19. Tianhao Shao & Weijie Du & Yun Ye & Haoqing Li & Jingxin Dong & Guiyun Liu & Pengjun Zheng, 2024. "A Novel Virtual Arrival Optimization Method for Traffic Organization Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Hassler, Madison L. & Andrews, Daniel J. & Ezell, Barry C. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2020. "Multi-perspective scenario-based preferences in enterprise risk analysis of public safety wireless broadband network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:22:y:2019:i:1:p:66-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.