A joint survey by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) and Amazon Business of 425 global supply chain professionals finds that while 71% now prioritize balancing cost and risk in procurement strategy, only 45% feel prepared for disruptions. Sixty-five percent still rely on manual reporting, and advanced risk tools remain underused: 49% employ risk matrices, and 46% conduct scenario planning. The report advocates a risk-adjusted operating model built on total cost of ownership, supply diversification, network visibility, faster decisions, and expanded scenario planning — all critical for professionals navigating ongoing geopolitical, economic, and operational volatility.
According to www.dcvelocity.com, a joint survey by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) and Amazon Business reveals a critical disconnect between strategic intent and operational readiness in global supply chains.
Strategic Intent vs. Execution Gap
While 71% of organizations report that balancing cost efficiency and supply chain risk now drives their procurement strategy, only 45% say they are prepared to manage supply chain disruptions. The findings come from a survey of 425 global supply chain professionals, detailed in the white paper “Balancing Cost and Risk: An Operating Model for Supply Chains.” Researchers attribute the gap to persistent volatility — geopolitical, economic, and operational — which has made disruption a continuous reality rather than an exception.
The report underscores that this misalignment is not theoretical: 65% of respondents still rely on manual reporting to gather supply chain data, impeding real-time responsiveness. As Debbie Fogel-Monnissen, ISM Interim CEO, stated:
“Organizations today are operating in an environment where disruption is no longer an exception. It is an ongoing reality. Leaders recognize the need to balance cost with resilience, but our research shows many are still building the capabilities to act on that insight. Closing that gap is essential to protecting performance and ensuring continuity.” — Debbie Fogel-Monnissen, ISM Interim CEO
Technology Adoption Remains Uneven
The survey identifies uneven implementation of procurement technologies as a key barrier. While 58% of organizations use e-procurement platforms and 51% deploy supplier portals, adoption drops sharply for advanced tools. Only 64% employ business impact analysis — a foundational risk assessment method — while just 49% use risk matrices and 46% conduct scenario planning. These figures indicate a maturity gap in structured, forward-looking risk evaluation practices.
This technological lag limits organizations’ ability to shift from reactive firefighting to proactive governance. Without predictive analytics or integrated risk monitoring, decision-making remains siloed and retrospective — undermining efforts to embed resilience into daily operations.
An Emerging Operating Model
To bridge the gap, the report proposes a new supply chain operating model centered on risk-adjusted decision-making. This model moves beyond price-centric sourcing toward a holistic “total cost of ownership” framework that explicitly incorporates service performance, process efficiency, and disruption exposure. Four interlocking practices underpin this shift:
- Diversifying supply sources
- Improving visibility across supply networks
- Accelerating decision-making cycles
- Expanding scenario planning capabilities
These practices are not isolated initiatives but mutually reinforcing capabilities. For example, improved visibility enables faster decisions, while expanded scenario planning informs smarter source diversification. The model’s success hinges on integrating data systems, upskilling teams, and aligning incentives across procurement, logistics, and finance functions.
For supply chain professionals, the implications are concrete: manual reporting workflows must be replaced with automated, API-connected data pipelines; risk assessments must evolve from annual checklists to dynamic, event-triggered evaluations; and procurement KPIs must include metrics like supplier recovery time and geographic concentration scores — not just cost savings.
Source: DC Velocity
Compiled from international media by the SCI.AI editorial team.
