Presentation on theme: "Vivek Roy Sumit Agarwal Subhash Kumar Parikshit Charan INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RAIPUR Selection of Post Disaster Humanitarian Logistics Structure."— Presentation transcript:
Vivek Roy Sumit Agarwal Subhash Kumar Parikshit Charan INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RAIPUR Selection of Post Disaster Humanitarian Logistics Structure Using AHP Approach
INTRODUCTION The process of transporting critical supplies post the disaster is very complex. It is therefore required that the relief operation must be very efficient and appropriate to match the requirements of the situation. Three structures of Post Disaster Humanitarian Logistics (PD-HL) Operation namely, Agency Centric Efforts (ACEs), Partially Integrated Efforts (PIEs) & Collaborative Aid Networks (CANs) Question arises in the superiority of these structures, one over the other. It is very important to choose the appropriate post disaster humanitarian logistics structure. An evaluation framework is required, which should incorporate all the determinants of these structures and is useful to select to most appropriate structure.
DETERMINANTS of PD-HL STRUCTURES SPEED AGILITY ADAPTABILITY DECENTRALIZATION RESILENCE ALIGNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM RESOURCE AVAILABILITY Some important PD-HL determinants are identified. There are eight determinants:
DETERMINANTS of PD-HL STRUCTURES SPEED The aid supply network in disaster relief is characterised both by its speed of inception and execution, as well as their relative impermanence. it serves a common goal an important characteristic in team formation AGILITY Quick response to change, As post catastrophic events, agility is very essential, since nobody knows that what challenges the relief operation is next going to face ADAPTABILITY As the situation changes, the PD-HL structure must be able to respond to the demand of the situation in the most appropriate way DECENTRALIZATION very important to reach the affected locations simultaneously as impacted area can be severely affected from various locations
DETERMINANTS of PD-HL STRUCTURES RESILENCE There are risks such as operational risks and functional risks which can arise during the relief operation, so the structure must be resilient enough to respond to ever changing situation. ALIGNMENT Any relief operation is interlinked with various activities and processes. If the goals for the effective relief are not aligned, then any operation cannot work in the desired way. INFORMATION SYSTEM As the experience in many past disasters has demonstrated, a successful local delivery operation requires not only logistical structure, but also information systems. RESOURCE AVAILABILITY The resource available gets exhausted continuously in any relief operation. So the resources must be checked regularly and replenished as required.
Alternatives for Structuring Post Disaster Humanitarian Logistics Operation Agency Centric Efforts (ACEs) Operation is based on the internal capacities of the group. This mainly comprises of the individuals and groups who are from the communities affected from disaster.. This is based on the internal capacities Partially Integrated Efforts (PIEs ) Group members can be local This structure is internally strong and could be well connected to the locals. The foreign group along with some locals helps with the local distribution of the supplies Collaborative Aid Networks (CANs) Comprises of social and religious groups The relationship to local people is very strong. The knowledge of the local conditions is very extensive. The strength of the network is very strong
Decision Environment Analytic Hierarchical Process a multi-criteria decision-making technique takes both quantitative and qualitative data into account involves the principles of decomposition, pair-wise comparisons, and priority generation and synthesis. based on the reasoning, knowledge and experience of the experts in the field
AHP Model for the Selection of PD-HL Structure DeterminantsSpeedAgilityAdaptabilityDecentralizationResilienceAlignment Information System Resource Availablity e-vector Speed11/33/18/15/12/16/140.095 Agility312/1653430.219 Adaptability1/31/21523420.158 Decentralization1/81/61/511/31/421/30.087 Resilience1/5 1/231 3 0.105 Alignment1/21/3 421330.136 Information System 1/61/4 1/21/3 11/50.080 Resource availablity 1/41/31/2321/3510.122 Pair-wise comparison of determinants [Consistency ratio: 0.07] Evaluation of alternatives SpeedACECANPIE e-vector ACE 11/71/4 0.187 CAN 713 0.516 PIE 41/31 0.297 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Speed [Consistency ratio (CR): 0.03] AgilityACECANPIE e-vector ACE11/61/3 0.187 CAN613 0.490 PIE31/31 0.270 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Agility [CR: 0.02]
Evaluation of alternatives (contd) AdaptabilityACECANPIE e-vector ACE11/71/3 0.187 CAN714 0.568 PIE31/41 0.270 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Adaptability [CR: 0.03] DecentralizationACECANPIE e-vector ACE11/51/2 0.187 CAN512 0.403 PIE21/21 0.236 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Decentralization [CR: 0.01] ResilienceACECANPIE e-vector ACE11/91/5 0.187 CAN913 0.561 PIE51/310.320 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Resilience [CR: 0.03] AlignmentACECANPIE e-vector ACE11/81/5 0.187 CAN814 0.594 PIE51/410.320 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Alignment [CR: 0.09] Information System ACECANPIE e-vector ACE174 0.568 CAN1/711/4 0.187 PIE1/4410.297 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Information System [CR: 0.07] ResourceACECANPIE e-vector ACE184 0.594 CAN1/811/5 0.187 PIE1/451 0.320 Matrix for alternatives’ impact on determinants Resource [CR = 0.09]
Weightages of determinants for the alternatives e-vectorsACEsCANsPIEs Speed 0.095 0.0790.6590.263 Agility 0.219 0.0950.6550.25 Adaptability 0.158 0.0840.7050.211 Decentralization 0.087 0.1280.5950.276 Resilience 0.105 0.0630.6720.265 Alignment 0.136 0.0640.6990.237 Information System 0.080 0.6960.0750.229 Resource availability 0.122 0.6990.0640.237 Composite Score0.154420.599130.245659 Result and discussion The result indicates that CANs must be the first choice to structure any post disaster humanitarian logistics system PIEs and ACEs follow CANs Superiority of CANs can be attributed to its significant presence in the affected area and outside of it. Agility (0.219) is the most important criteria in the selection of any post disaster humanitarian logistic structure.
Conclusion The AHP model presented in this paper structured the problem of selection of the structure for post disaster humanitarian logistic operation. AHP model integrates both quantitative and qualitative aspects and aids the decision makers in arriving at the best possible solution. Limitations The formation of pair-wise comparison matrices and data acquisition is a tedious and time consuming task Biasing might have influenced the results as they are based on the opinion of the experts We have tried to minimize this by checking the consistency of comparison using the method of consistency ratio
References Holguin-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Wachtendorf, T., 2012. Comparative performance of alternative humanitarian logistic structures after the port-au-prince earthquake: ACEs, PIEs and CANs. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 1623-1640. Lee, H.L., 2004, The Triple-A Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review, October, 102- 112. Saaty, T.L., 1980, The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York. Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P., 1985, Analytical Planning. Pergamon Press. Oxford. Tatham, P., Kovacs, G., 2010. The application of “swift trust” to humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Production Economics, 126, 35–45. Van Wassenhove, L.N., Pedraza-Martinez, A.J., 2012. Using OR to adaptsupply chain management best practices to humanitarian logis-tics. International Transactions in Operational Research 19 (1–2), 15,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 3995.2011.00792.x.