In 2022, Gordon Wilmsmeier and Marcus Thiell (Universidad De Los Andes, Colombia) published the chapter “Risk-driven supply chain design in complex environments, which emerged from observations of social, economic, and environmental disturbances causing global supply chain disruptions. Given current dynamics, we revisited and updated our framework.
A short recap
Their chapter developed a risk-driven approach to strategic supply chain design, arguing that traditional paradigms—cost/efficiency and agility—are increasingly insufficient. Supply chains have repeatedly reverted to efficiency-led architectures even after crises, thereby reproducing structural fragilities. The pandemic in particular exposed how lean operations, extensive outsourcing/offshoring, limited visibility, and strong interdependencies can create fragile networks whose performance collapses under (multiple) disruption(s). Our chapter framed that contemporary conditions require supply chains to reassess not only operational contingencies but also their underlying architecture and strategic objectives.
The authors distinguish fragility from vulnerability, where vulnerability concerns the magnitude of loss once disruption occurs, whereas fragility relates to the probability that disruption will occur given the system’s architecture and managerial choices. Typical “end-of-pipe” responses—focused on vulnerability through recovery, continuity, and contingency planning—are inadequate if a system remains structurally fragile.
Geopolitical and geoeconomic uncertainty impacts on supply chain designs
The conceptual decision framework, comprising ten structural design dimensions (see Table 1), did not explicitly consider and foresee current changes in the global economic and geopolitical environment at the time of writing.
Given current developments, authors asked ourselves how geopolitical and geoeconomic factors will impact the 10 dimensions of our supply chain design framework (see Table 1).
Table 1. Impacts of geopolitical and geoeconomic complexity across Thiell/Wilmsmeier’s (2022) supply chain design dimensions
Interpretation note: Authors position these dimensions as determinants of fragility “ceteris paribus” and acknowledge that interdependencies across dimensions matter (e.g., single sourcing risks may be partly offset by high transparency
Final reflections
In summary, geopolitical uncertainty emphasizes political fragmentation and sovereignty, while geoeconomic uncertainty highlights economic volatility and systemic resource risks. The explicit consideration of these contemporary complexity determinants reinforces our central thesis that supply chain design must internalize fragility trade-offs rather than optimize for narrow cost efficiency.
Thus, geopolitical risk pushes toward political alignment, regional blocs, and strategic autonomy that materializes in supply chain design, whereas geoeconomic risk pushes toward their diversification, with resource hedging and stability-oriented value definitions.
Sustainable competitive advantage of socio-economic systems lies in being a proactive player in adaptive and potentially antifragile supply chain architectures, rather than striving for a positioning in traditional cost- and efficiency-driven designs. The latter implies acceptance of resilience and its inherent loss of control as a strategic default mode to achieve GDP-centric economic growth.
Reference
Thiell, M., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2022). Risk-Driven Supply Chain Design: Options and Trade-Offs in Complex Environments. In Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies for the 2020s: Vital Skills for the Next Generation (pp. 289-306). Cham: Springer International Publishing. –
