IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of trust-based decision making in disrupted supply chains

Author

Listed:
  • Rozhin Doroudi
  • Pedro Sequeira
  • Stacy Marsella
  • Ozlem Ergun
  • Rana Azghandi
  • David Kaeli
  • Yifan Sun
  • Jacqueline Griffin

Abstract

The United States has experienced prolonged severe shortages of vital medications over the past two decades. The causes underlying the severity and prolongation of these shortages are complex, in part due to the complexity of the underlying supply chain networks, which involve supplier-buyer interactions across multiple entities with competitive and cooperative goals. This leads to interesting challenges in maintaining consistent interactions and trust among the entities. Furthermore, disruptions in supply chains influence trust by inducing over-reactive behaviors across the network, thereby impacting the ability to consistently meet the resulting fluctuating demand. To explore these issues, we model a pharmaceutical supply chain with boundedly rational artificial decision makers capable of reasoning about the motivations and behaviors of others. We use multiagent simulations where each agent represents a key decision maker in a pharmaceutical supply chain. The agents possess a Theory-of-Mind capability to reason about the beliefs, and past and future behaviors of other agents, which allows them to assess other agents’ trustworthiness. Further, each agent has beliefs about others’ perceptions of its own trustworthiness that, in turn, impact its behavior. Our experiments reveal several counter-intuitive results showing how small, local disruptions can have cascading global consequences that persist over time. For example, a buyer, to protect itself from disruptions, may dynamically shift to ordering from suppliers with a higher perceived trustworthiness, while the supplier may prefer buyers with more stable ordering behavior. This asymmetry can put the trust-sensitive buyer at a disadvantage during shortages. Further, we demonstrate how the timing and scale of disruptions interact with a buyer’s sensitivity to trustworthiness. This interaction can engender different behaviors and impact the overall supply chain performance, either prolonging and exacerbating even small local disruptions, or mitigating a disruption’s effects. Additionally, we discuss the implications of these results for supply chain operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Rozhin Doroudi & Pedro Sequeira & Stacy Marsella & Ozlem Ergun & Rana Azghandi & David Kaeli & Yifan Sun & Jacqueline Griffin, 2020. "Effects of trust-based decision making in disrupted supply chains," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224761
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224761
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224761&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224761?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. Whan-Seon Kim, 2009. "Effects of a Trust Mechanism on Complex Adaptive Supply Networks: An Agent-Based Social Simulation Study," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(3), pages 1-4.
    2. Ghadimi, Pezhman & Ghassemi Toosi, Farshad & Heavey, Cathal, 2018. "A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 286-301.
    3. Kim Pauwels & Steven Simoens & Minne Casteels & Isabelle Huys, 2015. "Insights into European Drug Shortages: A Survey of Hospital Pharmacists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Durango-Cohen, Elizabeth J. & Li, Chia Hang, 2017. "Modeling supplier capacity allocation decisions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 256-272.
    5. Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 1999. "Capacity Choice and Allocation: Strategic Behavior and Supply Chain Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1091-1108, August.
    6. Kawtummachai, Ruengsak & Van Hop, Nguyen, 2005. "Order allocation in a multiple-supplier environment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 231-238, January.
    7. Sarkar, Sourish & Kumar, Sanjay, 2015. "A behavioral experiment on inventory management with supply chain disruption," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 169-178.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ulpan Tokkozhina & Ana Lucia Martins & Joao C. Ferreira, 2023. "Uncovering dimensions of the impact of blockchain technology in supply chain management," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 99-125, March.

    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. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jarratt, Denise & Ceric, Arnela, 2015. "The complexity of trust in business collaborations," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 2-12.
    3. Geng, Qin & Mallik, Suman, 2007. "Inventory competition and allocation in a multi-channel distribution system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 704-729, October.
    4. Cai, W. & Singham, D.I., 2018. "A principal–agent problem with heterogeneous demand distributions for a carbon capture and storage system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 239-256.
    5. Deligiannis, Michalis & Liberopoulos, George, 2023. "Dynamic ordering and buyer selection policies when service affects future demand," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. İsmail Bakal & Nesim Erkip & Refik Güllü, 2011. "Value of supplier’s capacity information in a two-echelon supply chain," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 115-135, November.
    7. Junhu Ruan & Felix T. S. Chan & Xiaofeng Zhao, 2018. "Re-Planning the Intermodal Transportation of Emergency Medical Supplies with Updated Transfer Centers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    8. ElHafsi, Mohsen & Camus, Herve & Craye, Etienne, 2010. "Managing an integrated production inventory system with information on the production and demand status and multiple non-unitary demand classes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 986-1001, December.
    9. Yefen Chen & Feimin Zhong & Zhongbao Zhou, 2023. "Supply commitment contract in capacity allocation games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 329(1), pages 373-399, October.
    10. Gudmundsson, Jens & Hougaard, Jens Leth & Platz, Trine Tornøe, 2023. "Decentralized task coordination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 851-864.
    11. Leon Yang Chu & Noam Shamir & Hyoduk Shin, 2017. "Strategic Communication for Capacity Alignment with Pricing in a Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4366-4377, December.
    12. Charles J. Corbett, 2001. "Stochastic Inventory Systems in a Supply Chain with Asymmetric Information: Cycle Stocks, Safety Stocks, and Consignment Stock," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 487-500, August.
    13. Madhav V. Rajan & Stefan Reichelstein, 2004. "ANNIVERSARY ARTICLE: A Perspective on ÜAsymmetric Information, Incentives and Intrafirm Resource AllocationÝ," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1615-1623, December.
    14. S S Chauhan & J-M Proth & A M Sarmiento & R Nagi, 2006. "Opportunistic supply chain formation from qualified partners for a new market demand," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1089-1099, September.
    15. Wu, H. & Parlar, M., 2011. "Games with incomplete information: A simplified exposition with inventory management applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 562-577, October.
    16. Woo, Hong Seng & Saghiri, Soroosh, 2011. "Order assignment considering buyer, third-party logistics provider, and suppliers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 144-152, April.
    17. Kapustina Larisa M. & Chovancová Mária & Klapita Vladimír, 2017. "Application of Specific Theory of Constraints Technique for the Identification of Main Causes of Negative Consequences within Procurement Logistics," LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 56-63, May.
    18. Robert L. Bray & Haim Mendelson, 2012. "Information Transmission and the Bullwhip Effect: An Empirical Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 860-875, May.
    19. Hau L. Lee & V. Padmanabhan & Seungjin Whang, 2004. "Comments on "Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12_supple), pages 1887-1893, December.
    20. Fleuren, Tijn & Merzifonluoglu, Yasemin & Geunes, Joseph & Sotirov, Renata, 2024. "Integrated customer portfolio selection and procurement quantity planning for a supplier," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 128(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:plo:pone00:0224761. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.