Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning for Real-Time Supply Chain Risk Mitigation and Agility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Works
3. Proposed Framework
3.1. Predictive Analytics in Supply Chain Risk Management
3.1.1. Data Collection and Processing
3.1.2. Feature Engineering
3.1.3. Model Selection and Training
Algorithm 1: Predictive Analytics in Supply Chain Risk Management |
1. Input: preprocessed and harmonized dataset, selected features, and response variables. 2. Output: trained predictive models, model evaluation results. 3. Initialize empty lists “feature_list” and “response_list” to store selected features and response variables. 4. For each selected feature “feature” in selected features: a. Append “feature” to the “feature_list”. 5. For each selected-response variable “response” in response variables: a. Append “response” to the “response_list”. 6. Prepare feature matrix “X” by extracting features from the preprocessed dataset using the “feature_list”. 7. Prepare response vector “y” by extracting response variables from the preprocessed dataset using the “response_list”. 8. Split the dataset into training and testing subsets, ensuring temporal integrity if applicable. 9. For each predictive model “model” to be trained: a. Initialize an empty model instance with relevant parameters. b. Train “model” using the training subset, feature matrix “X”, and response vector “y”. 10. Perform model evaluation using the testing subset: a. For each trained model “model”: i. Make predictions on the testing subset using “model” and feature matrix “X”. ii. Evaluate model performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, RMSE) based on predicted values and true response values. 11. Select the best-performing predictive model based on evaluation metrics or domain-specific criteria. 12. Optionally, perform model hyperparameter tuning to optimize model performance. 13. Output the trained predictive model “best_model” and the results of model evaluation. End. |
- Mathematical Modeling
3.2. Real-Time Monitoring and Risk Identification
3.2.1. Anomaly Detection
Algorithm 2: Anomaly Detection using One-Class SVM |
1. Input: real-time data stream, trained one-class SVM model, predefined anomaly score threshold. 2. Output: detected anomalies, and alerts. 3. Initialize empty lists of “anomalies” and “alerts” to store detected anomalies and generated alerts. 4. For each incoming data point “data_point” in the real-time data stream: a. Use the trained one-class SVM model to predict the anomaly score of “data_point”. b. Compare the anomaly score with the predefined threshold. 5. If the anomaly score is higher than the threshold: a. Mark “data_point” as an anomaly. b. Add “data_point” to the “anomalies” list. c. Generate an alert indicating a potential disruption. 6. Return the list of detected anomalies “anomalies” and the list of generated alerts “alerts”. End. |
3.2.2. Early Warning Systems
Algorithm 3: Early Warning Systems using One-Class SVM |
1. Input: real-time data stream, trained one-class SVM model, predefined alert threshold. 2. Output: generated alerts. 3. Initialize an empty list “alerts” to store generated alerts. 4. For each incoming data point “data_point” in the real-time data stream: a. Use the trained one-class SVM model to predict the anomaly score of “data_point”. b. Compare the anomaly score with the predefined alert threshold. 5. If the anomaly score is higher than the alert threshold: a. Generate an alert indicating a potential disruption. b. Add the alert to the “alerts” list. 6. Return the list of generated alerts “alerts”. End. |
3.3. Proactive Risk Mitigation and Adaptive Strategies
3.3.1. Risk Impact Assessment
- R: Set of identified risks.
- I_r: Impact of risk r on supply chain operations.
- C_r: Cost associated with risk r in terms of revenue impact or additional expenses.
- P_r: Probability of risk r occurring.
- The overall impact I_r of risk r on supply chain operations can be calculated as:
- I_r = C_r * P_r
- The impact assessment can be further categorized based on severity levels:
- Low-impact: I_r < Threshold_Low
- Moderate-impact: Threshold_Low <= I_r < Threshold_Moderate
- High-impact: I_r >= Threshold_Moderate
Algorithm 4: Risk Impact Assessment |
Here is an algorithm outlining the steps for the “Risk Impact Assessment” phase: Algorithm: Risk Impact Assessment 1. Input: identified risks R, associated costs C_r, probabilities P_r, predefined severity thresholds. 2. Output: categorized risks based on impact levels. 3. For each identified risk r in R: a. Calculate the impact I_r using I_r = C_r * P_r. b. Determine the severity level based on the predefined thresholds: -If I_r < Threshold_Low, categorize risk r as low-impact. -If Threshold_Low <= I_r < Threshold_Moderate, categorize risk r as moderate-impact. -If I_r >= Threshold_Moderate, categorize risk r as high-impact. 4. Return the categorized risks based on impact levels. End. |
3.3.2. Adaptive Decision-Making
Algorithm 5: Adaptive Decision-Making |
1. Input: real-time data stream, trained predictive models, historical data, model update interval. 2. Output: updated predictive models. 3. Initialize an empty list “data_history” to store historical data points. 4. Initialize a timer to track the model update interval. 5. While the real-time data stream is active: a. Continuously collect incoming data points from the real-time data stream. b. Append the collected data points to the “data_history” list. c. Check if the timer has reached the model update interval: -If the timer has reached the interval: i. Train new predictive models using the combined historical data (“data_history”) and the initial trained models. ii. Update the trained models with the new ones. iii. Reset the timer. d. Monitor the real-time data stream and incoming data points for anomalies and deviations. e. If an anomaly is detected: i. Use the updated predictive models to assess the risk impact and determine the appropriate response action. f. Continue monitoring and adapting the models based on incoming data. 6. Return the updated predictive models. End. |
4. Results
5. Case Studies and Practical Application
5.1. Automotive Industry: Just-In-Time Production Optimization
5.2. Retail Sector: Demand Volatility Management
5.3. Pharmaceutical Industry: Regulatory Compliance and Supplier Integrity
5.4. Technology Sector: Geopolitical Risk Mitigation
6. Discussion
6.1. Implications
6.2. Challenges
7. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Golgeci, I.; Yildiz, H.E.; Andersson, U.R. The rising tensions between efficiency and resilience in global value chains in the post-COVID-19 world. Transnatl. Corp. J. 2020, 27, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mentzer, J.T.; Stank, T.P.; Myers, M.B. Why Global Supply Chain Management? In Handbook of Global Supply Chain Management; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Challies, E.; Newig, J.; Lenschow, A. What role for social–ecological systems research in governing global teleconnections? Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 27, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazzarini, S.; Chaddad, F.; Cook, M. Integrating supply chain and network analyses: The study of netchains. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2001, 1, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starr, R.; Newfrock, J.; Delurey, M. Enterprise resilience: Managing risk in the networked economy. Strategy Bus. 2003, 30, 70–79. [Google Scholar]
- Pu, G.; Li, S.; Bai, J. Effect of supply chain resilience on firm’s sustainable competitive advantage: A dynamic capability perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 4881–4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, C.J. Developing a model for supply chain agility and innovativeness to enhance firms’ competitive advantage. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 1511–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bird, R.C. VUCA and the Legal Environment of Business; University of Connecticut School of Business Research Paper No. 18-09; University of Connecticut: Storrs, CT, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Correa-Baena, J.P.; Hippalgaonkar, K.; van Duren, J.; Jaffer, S.; Chandrasekhar, V.R.; Stevanovic, V.; Wadia, C.; Guha, S.; Buonassisi, T. Accelerating materials development via automation, machine learning, and high-performance computing. Joule 2018, 2, 1410–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharadiya, J.P. Machine Learning and AI in Business Intelligence: Trends and Opportunities. Int. J. Comput. 2023, 48, 123–134. [Google Scholar]
- Gunasekaran, A.; Lai, K.H.; Cheng, T.E. Responsive supply chain: A competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega 2008, 36, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawat, R. A Systematic Review of Blockchain Technology Use in E-Supply Chain in Internet of Medical Things (Iomt). Int. J. Comput. Inf. Manuf. 2022, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perifanis, N.A.; Kitsios, F. Investigating the influence of artificial intelligence on business value in the digital era of strategy: A literature review. Information 2023, 14, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, S.; Optimizing Supply Chain with AI and Analytics. Appinventiv. 2023. Available online: https://appinventiv.com/blog/ai-in-supply-chain-analytics/ (accessed on 19 August 2023).
- Wong, L.W.; Tan, G.W.H.; Ooi, K.B.; Lin, B.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Artificial intelligence-driven risk management for enhancing supply chain agility: A deep-learning-based dual-stage PLS-SEM-ANN analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannakis, M.; Louis, M. A multi-agent based system with big data processing for enhanced supply chain agility. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 706–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayender, P.; Kundu, G.K. Intelligent ERP for SCM agility and graph theory technique for adaptation in automotive industry in India. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamout, M.D. Supply chain data analytics and supply chain agility: A fuzzy sets (fsQCA) approach. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 1055–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, M.; Lodemann, S. A systematic investigation of the integration of machine learning into supply chain risk management. Logistics 2021, 5, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.H.; Yang, H.C.; Wei, Y.C.; Hsu, W.K. Enabling blockchain based scm systems with a real time event monitoring function for preemptive risk management. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganesh, A.D.; Kalpana, P. Future of artificial intelligence and its influence on supply chain risk management–A systematic review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 169, 108206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A. A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mageto, J. Big data analytics in sustainable supply chain management: A focus on manufacturing supply chains. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D. 5G in digital supply chain and operations management: Fostering flexibility, end-to-end connectivity and real-time visibility through internet-of-everything. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constante, F.; Silva, F.; Pereira, A. DataCo Smart Supply Chain for Big Data Analysis; Mendeley: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Seyedan, M.; Mafakheri, F. Predictive big data analytics for supply chain demand forecasting: Methods, applications, and research opportunities. J. Big Data 2020, 7, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapankevych, N.I.; Sankar, R. Time series prediction using support vector machines: A survey. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 2009, 4, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuster, C.; Rezgui, Y.; Mourshed, M. Electrical load forecasting models: A critical systematic review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 35, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deb, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, J.; Lee, S.E.; Shah, K.W. A review on time series forecasting techniques for building energy consumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 902–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippi, M.; Bertini, M.; Frasconi, P. Short-term traffic flow forecasting: An experimental comparison of time-series analysis and supervised learning. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2013, 14, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhuyan, M.H.; Bhattacharyya, D.K.; Kalita, J.K. Network anomaly detection: Methods, systems and tools. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2013, 16, 303–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barford, P.; Kline, J.; Plonka, D.; Ron, A. A signal analysis of network traffic anomalies. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurment, New York, NY, USA, 6—8 November 2002; pp. 71–82. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, G.; Shen, C.; Cao, L.; Hengel AV, D. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2021, 54, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McBride, S.K.; Bostrom, A.; Sutton, J.; de Groot, R.M.; Baltay, A.S.; Terbush, B.; Bodin, P.; Dixon, M.; Holland, E.; Arba, R.; et al. Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 50, 101713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonioli, P.; Fienberg, R.T.; Fleurot, F.; Fukuda, Y.; Fulgione, W.; Habig, A.; Heise, J.; McDonald, A.B.; Mills, C.; Namba, T.; et al. SNEWS: The SuperNova early warning system. New J. Phys. 2004, 6, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Chen, T.; Shah, S.L. Detection of frequent alarm patterns in industrial alarm floods using itemset mining methods. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 7290–7300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunasekaran, A.; Kobu, B. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: A review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 2819–2840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, D.W.; Lee, Y.H.; Ahn, S.H.; Hwang, M.K. A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2012, 62, 801–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azadegan, A.; Syed, T.A.; Blome, C.; Tajeddini, K. Supply chain involvement in business continuity management: Effects on reputational and operational damage containment from supply chain disruptions. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020, 25, 747–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, P.; Jain, S.; Gupta, S.; Chamola, V. Role of machine learning and deep learning in securing 5G-driven industrial IoT applications. Ad Hoc Netw. 2021, 123, 102685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adadi, A.; Berrada, M. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access 2018, 6, 52138–52160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yathiraju, N. Investigating the use of an Artificial Intelligence Model in an ERP Cloud-Based System. Int. J. Electr. Electron. Comput. 2022, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, D.; De Ruyter, A.; Hearne, D.; Ortega-Argilés, R. Shocks, resilience and regional industry policy: Brexit and the automotive sector in two Midlands regions. Reg. Stud. 2023, 57, 1141–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chervenkova, T.; Ivanov, D. Adaptation strategies for building supply chain viability: A case study analysis of the global automotive industry re-purposing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2023, 177, 103249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqhatani, A.; Ashraf, M.S.; Ferzund, J.; Shaf, A.; Abosaq, H.A.; Rahman, S.; Irfan, M.; Alqhtani, S.M. 360° Retail Business Analytics by Adopting Hybrid Machine Learning and a Business Intelligence Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njomane, L.; Telukdarie, A. Impact of COVID-19 food supply chain: Comparing the use of IoT in three South African supermarkets. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, E.; Rathore, P.; Parida, R.; Rana, N.P. The interplay of emerging technologies in pharmaceutical supply chain performance: An empirical investigation for the rise of Pharma 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 181, 121768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdallah, S.; Nizamuddin, N. Blockchain-based solution for pharma supply chain industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 177, 108997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trautmann, L.; Hübner, T.; Lasch, R. Blockchain concept to combat drug counterfeiting by increasing supply chain visibility. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2022, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kartoglu, U.; Ames, H. Ensuring quality and integrity of vaccines throughout the cold chain: The role of temperature monitoring. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2022, 21, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdemir, D.; Sharma, M.; Dhir, A.; Daim, T. Supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panahi, R.; Gargari, N.S.; Lau, Y.Y.; Ng, A.K. Developing a resilience assessment model for critical infrastructures: The case of port in tackling the impacts posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 226, 106240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, M.L.; Bui, T.D.; Lim, M.K.; Fujii, M.; Mishra, U. Assessing data-driven sustainable supply chain management indicators for the textile industry under industrial disruption and ambidexterity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 245, 108401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Focus | Methodology | Research Gap | Key Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wong et al. [15] | SMEs, Supply Chain Agility, AI-Driven Risk Mgmt | PLS-SEM, ANN | Investigated AI’s impact on risk management in SMEs. Explored the relationship between AI, risk management, and supply chain agility. | AI utilization positively affects risk management and supply chain agility. AI aids in handling demand uncertainty for informed decisions and rapid resource allocation. |
Giannakis and Louis [16] | Supply Chain Management, Big Data Analytics | Multi-Agent System, Big Data Analytics | Introduced a multi-agent-based supply chain management system using big data analytics. Investigated its impact on supply chain agility through autonomous corrective control actions. | The study identified agility components: responding, flexibility, and speed. The system enhances agility across dimensions, promoting quick, adaptable, and responsive supply chain operations. |
Jayender and Kundu [17] | Automobile Industry, Big Data Analytics | Graph-Theory-Based Approach | Explored elements influencing supply chain agility in the automobile industry. Investigated interoperability between big data analytics and ERP systems. Proposed a graph-theory-based approach to enhance agility and address implementation challenges. | Emphasized the need for novel strategies to ensure agility in complex businesses, especially in the automobile industry. |
Shamout [18] | Supply Chain Data Analytics, Fuzzy Sets | fsQCA | Examined supply chain data analytics and its impact on supply chain agility. Utilized causal recipes to forecast high levels of agility. | Highlighted the importance of comprehensive data analytics in achieving supply chain agility in a complex business environment. |
Schroeder and Lodemann [19] | Machine Learning, Supply Chain Risk Mgmt | Systematic Literature Review | Conducted a literature review on the application of machine learning (ML) in supply chain risk management (SCRM). Evaluated the use of ML for identifying production, transport, and supply hazards. | Demonstrated how ML can enhance SCRM by incorporating new data sources and providing real-time insights into potential risks. |
Lee et al. [20] | Real-Time Incident Detection, Blockchain | Twitter Data, Blockchain Technology | Investigated real-time incident detection using Twitter data and blockchain technology. Aimed to improve supply chain visibility and proactively reduce risks. | Showcased the potential of real-time data collection and blockchain for better risk management and supply chain visibility. |
Ganesh and Kalpana [21] | AI, ML in Supply Chain Risk Mgmt | Literature Review | Examined the use of AI and ML throughout the stages of supply chain risk management. Reviewed AI algorithms and their applications in managing different supply chain risks. | Highlighted gaps in the existing literature and presented directions for further research and implementation challenges. |
Ivanov and Dolgui [22] | Digital Supply Chain Twin, Risk Mgmt | Digital Twin Technology | Introduced the concept of a digital supply chain twin. Explored its potential to improve supply chain visibility and manage disruption risks. | Emphasized the critical role of digital twins in ensuring business continuity, particularly during events like the COVID-19 pandemic. |
Mageto [23] | Big Data Analytics, Sustainable Supply Chain | Toulmin’s Argumentation Model | Examined the relationship between big data analytics and sustainable supply chain management. Addressed issues such as cyberattacks and talent gaps. | Demonstrated how big data analytics enhances sustainability within manufacturing supply chains and identified challenges. |
Dolgui and Ivanov [24] | 5G in Digital Supply Chains, Smart Operations | Literature Review | Investigated 5G’s potential to improve digital supply chains and smart operations. Explored transformational areas and cost-benefit trade-offs associated with 5G adoption. | Identified areas of potential transformation in digital supply chains and the need for assessing the costs and benefits of adopting 5G technologies. |
Aljohani (This research study) | Integration of Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning in SCRM | Predictive Analytics, Machine Learning, Real-time Monitoring, Supply Chain Risk Management | Investigated the transition from reactive to proactive risk management and the adoption of predictive analytics | Integration of predictive analytics and machine learning enhances supply chain agility, enabling real-time risk identification and proactive mitigation. A paradigm shift from reactive crisis management to proactive risk avoidance. |
Step | Approach | Dataset Size | Metrics | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Data Collection and Preprocessing | Historical and Real-time Data | 12,000 records | Data Cleaning: 97% Accuracy | Improved data quality; consistent format |
Predictive Analytics | One-Class SVM | 10,000 records | Accuracy: 85% | Effective anomaly detection; low false positives |
Early Warning Systems | Threshold-based | 8500 records | Precision: 78% | Timely alerts were generated; some false alarms |
Risk Impact Assessment | Financial Metrics | - | Revenue Impact Reduction | 15% reduction in revenue loss during disruptions |
Adaptive Decision-Making | Regular Model Updates | - | Response Optimization | Reduced response time; better resource allocation |
Evaluation and Learning | Historical and Real-time Data | 12,000 records | Continuous Improvement | Models adapt well to changing risk profiles |
Data Source | Data Quality Improvement (%) | Data Transformation | Feature Engineering |
---|---|---|---|
Historical Records | 95% | Cleaned, normalized | Engineered new features |
Real-time Streams | 90% | Normalized | None |
External Data Sources | 85% | Transformed to match the internal format | None |
Model Used | Training Data Size | Testing Data Size | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1-Score (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-Class SVM | 8000 | 2000 | 89.5 | 82.1 | 74.3 | 77.9 |
Alert Threshold | True Positives | False Positives | True Negatives | False Negatives | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1-Score (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.75 | 145 | 32 | 1650 | 35 | 81.9 | 80.6 | 81.2 |
Risk Type | Impact Level | Revenue Impact (%) Reduction | Response Action Taken |
---|---|---|---|
Supply Shortage | High | 12% | Adjusted Production Schedule |
Demand Surge | Moderate | 8% | Allocated Additional Resources |
Geopolitical Risk | High | 15% | Sourced Alternative Suppliers |
Supplier Delay | Moderate | 10% | Expedited Sourcing |
Regulatory Change | Low | 5% | Supplier Communication |
Market Shift | Moderate | 7% | Reallocation of Stock |
Supplier Insolvency | High | 18% | Activated Contingency Plans |
Production Failure | High | 14% | Rapid Maintenance Response |
Model Update Interval | Improved Response Time (%) | Resource Allocation Efficiency (%) |
---|---|---|
6 h | 26% | 18 |
12 h | 18% | 15 |
24 h | 12% | 10 |
48 h | 8% | 7 |
Model Update Strategy | Model Performance Improvement (%) | Response Optimization Impact (%) |
---|---|---|
Regular Updates | 12% | 15% |
Dynamic Thresholds | 8% | 10% |
Continuous Learning | 14% | 18% |
Hybrid Approach | 10% | 12% |
Parameters | Metrics/Variables | Data (Sample) | Measurement Units |
---|---|---|---|
Supply Chain Performance | |||
Supplier On-time Delivery Rate | Before Optimization | 92% | Percentage |
After Optimization | 97% | Percentage | |
Inventory Turnover Rate | Before Optimization | 6 | Turns per year |
After Optimization | 8 | Turns per year | |
Production Efficiency | |||
Production Cycle Time | Before Optimization | 8 h | Hours |
After Optimization | 6 h | Hours | |
Defect Rate | Before Optimization | 3% | Percentage |
After Optimization | 1.5% | Percentage | |
Financial Impact | |||
Cost Reduction | Total Cost Savings | USD 750,000 | Dollars |
Revenue Increase | Sales Revenue Growth | 10% | Percentage |
Parameters | Metrics/Variables | Data (Sample) | Measurement Units |
---|---|---|---|
Demand Forecast Accuracy | |||
Mean Absolute Percentage Error | Before Optimization | 15% | Percentage |
After Optimization | 8% | Percentage | |
Inventory Management | |||
Inventory Turnover Rate | Before Optimization | 4.2 | Turns per year |
After Optimization | 5.8 | Turns per year | |
Safety Stock Levels | Average Safety Stock Levels (Before) | 500 units | Units |
Average Safety Stock Levels (After) | 350 units | Units | |
Order Fulfillment | |||
Order Lead Time | Average Lead Time (Before) | 5 days | Days |
Average Lead Time (After) | 3 days | Days | |
Financial Impact | |||
Cost Reduction | Inventory Holding Cost Savings | USD 200,000 | Dollars |
Revenue Increase | Sales Revenue Growth | 8% | Percentage |
Parameters | Metrics/Variables | Data (Sample) | Measurement Units |
---|---|---|---|
Supplier Performance | |||
Supplier Regulatory Compliance | Compliance Rate | 97% | Percentage |
Number of Regulatory Violations (Before) | 6 | Count | |
Number of Regulatory Violations (After) | 1 | Count | |
Quality Control | |||
Product Defect Rate | Defective Product Rate (Before) | 2.5% | Percentage |
Defective Product Rate (After) | 0.8% | Percentage | |
Audit and Inspection | |||
Regulatory Audit Findings | Number of Findings (Before) | 15 | Count |
Number of Findings (After) | 2 | Count | |
Financial Impact | |||
Cost of Non-Compliance | Cost of Regulatory Fines (Before) | USD 700,000 | Dollars |
Cost of Regulatory Fines (After) | USD 80,000 | Dollars | |
Operational Efficiency | |||
Lead Time Reduction | Average Supplier Response Time (Before) | 12 days | Days |
Average Supplier Response Time (After) | 4 days | Days | |
Compliance Improvement | |||
Compliance Training | Number of Training Hours | 150 h | Hours |
Training Cost | USD 30,000 | Dollars |
Parameters | Metrics/Variables | Data (Sample) | Measurement Units |
---|---|---|---|
Geopolitical Risk Assessment | |||
Risk Severity Score | Before Mitigation | 8.5 | Scale (1–10) |
After Mitigation | 4.2 | Scale (1–10) | |
Supply Chain Disruptions | |||
Number of Disruptions (Before) | Geopolitical Incidents | 15 | Count |
Supply Chain Delays (Before) | 8 | Count | |
Number of Disruptions (After) | Geopolitical Incidents | 3 | Count |
Supply Chain Delays (After) | 1 | Count | |
Financial Impact | |||
Cost of Disruptions (Before) | Financial Loss (Before) | USD 1,200,000 | Dollars |
Cost of Disruptions (After) | Financial Loss (After) | USD 150,000 | Dollars |
Risk Mitigation Effectiveness | |||
Risk Reduction Ratio | 55% | Percentage | |
Operational Continuity | |||
Downtime Duration (Before) | Operational Downtime (Before) | 36 h | Hours |
Downtime Duration (After) | Operational Downtime (After) | 6 h | Hours |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Aljohani, A. Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning for Real-Time Supply Chain Risk Mitigation and Agility. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015088
Aljohani A. Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning for Real-Time Supply Chain Risk Mitigation and Agility. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):15088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015088
Chicago/Turabian StyleAljohani, Abeer. 2023. "Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning for Real-Time Supply Chain Risk Mitigation and Agility" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 15088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015088
APA StyleAljohani, A. (2023). Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning for Real-Time Supply Chain Risk Mitigation and Agility. Sustainability, 15(20), 15088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015088