Risk of the Maritime Supply Chain System Based on Interpretative Structural Model

Open access


Marine transportation is the most important transport mode of in the international trade, but the maritime supply chain is facing with many risks. At present, most of the researches on the risk of the maritime supply chain focus on the risk identification and risk management, and barely carry on the quantitative analysis of the logical structure of each influencing factor. This paper uses the interpretative structure model to analysis the maritime supply chain risk system. On the basis of comprehensive literature analysis and expert opinion, this paper puts forward 16 factors of maritime supply chain risk system. Using the interpretative structure model to construct maritime supply chain risk system, and then optimize the model. The model analyzes the structure of the maritime supply chain risk system and its forming process, and provides a scientific basis for the controlling the maritime supply chain risk, and puts forward some corresponding suggestions for the prevention and control the maritime supply chain risk.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. H. Carvalho A. P. Barroso V. H.Machado S. Azevedo & Cruz-Machado 2012. Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62(1) 329-341.

  • 2. J. Lam J. Dai 2015. Developing supply chain security design of logistics service providers: an analytical network process-quality function deployment approach. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manage. 45 (No. 7) 674-690.

  • 3. Y. C Yang 2011. Risk management of Taiwan’s maritime supply chain security. Safety science 49(3): 382-393.

  • 4. J. S. L. Lam 2011. Patterns of maritime supply chains: slot capacity analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 19(2): 366-374.

  • 5. R. Banomyong* 2005 The impact of port and trade security initiatives on maritime supply-chain management. Maritime Policy & Management 32(1): 3-13.

  • 6. P. Barnes R. Oloruntoba Assurance of security in maritime supply chains: Conceptual issues of vulnerability and crisis management. Journal of International Management 11(4): 519-540.

  • 7. A. Mandal S. G. Deshmukh 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(6): 52-59.

  • 8. T. Minahan 2005. The Supply Risk Benchmark Report. Aberdeen Group Boston.

  • 9. V. Singhal K. Hendricks R. Zhang 2009. The effect of operational slack diversification and vertical relatedness on the stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (3) 233-246.

  • 10. F. Wiengarten P. Humphreys C. Gimenez R. McIvor 2016. Risk risk management practices and the success of supply chain integration. Int. J. Prod.Econ. 171 (3) 361-370.

  • 11. J. S. L .Lam 2015. Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: a hybrid QFD-ANP approach. Transp. Res. Part E 78 70-81.

  • 12. M. Christopher H. Peck C. Rutherford U. Juttner 2003. Supply chain resilience. Cranfield Centre for Logistics & Supply Chain Management November appendix 1.

  • 13. C. H. Chang J. J. Xu D. P. Song 2014. An analysis of safety and security risks in container shipping operations: a case study of Taiwan. Saf. Sci. 63 (3) 168-178

  • 14. J. P. P. Vilko J. M. Hallikas 2012. Risk assessment in multimodal supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 586-595.

  • 15. S. Gurning S. Cahoon 2011. Analysis of multi-mitigation scenarios on maritime disruptions. Marit. Pol. Manage. 38 (3) 251-268.

  • 16. UNCTAD 2006. Maritime Security: Elements of an Analytical Framework for Compliance Measurement and Risk Assessment. Reported by UNCTAD 1-10.

  • 17. U. Juttner H. Peck M. Christopher 2003. Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist.: Res. Appl. 6 (4) 197-210.

  • 18. J. S. L .Lam 2015. Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: a hybrid QFD-ANP approach. Transp. Res. Part E 78 70-81.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.214
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.086

CiteScore 2018: 1.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.391
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.141

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 451 110 13
PDF Downloads 383 120 12