Question Description Mark Allocation

$1\mathrm{.}1$ Introduction:

In the context of PepsiCo critically discuss the concept of supply chain

resilience. On a scale of $1$ to $10(1$ being the least and $10$ the highest$)$ rate the

organisations supply chains in terms of resilience and justify your grading.

$(20)$

$1\mathrm{.}2$ Provide an illustration of a risk register for PepsiCo in which you provide an

analysis of ANY FIVE $(5)$ supply chain risks. Your response should be in the

form of a diagram.

$(20)$

$1\mathrm{.}3$ PepsiCo has recently dismissed its supply chain executive responsible for the

East African Region for failing to anticipate and plan for several supply chain

risks that have cost the company approximately US$$2$ million. Considering this,

comment on the appropriateness of this sanction and whether SCM executives

should be liable for failing to anticipate risk occurrences. Provide relevant

examples to substantiate your position.

$(20)$

$1\mathrm{.}4$ For the risks identified in question $1\mathrm{.}2,$ demonstrate the strategies and

contingencies that should be considered when responding to these risks. Make

use of relevant examples and illustrations.

$(20)$

$1\mathrm{.}5$ PepsiCo wants to create a portfolio of suppliers for the corn used in their

products that will represent a reasonable balance between costs and risks.

While it knows that the single$-$supplier approach has many potential benefits

with respect to quality management and just$-$in$-$time production, there are also

worries about the risk of fires, natural disasters, or other catastrophes at

supplier plants disrupting their firm$$s performance. Based on historical data and

climate and geological forecasts, the organisation estimates the probability of a

$$super$-$event$$ that would negatively impact all suppliers simultaneously to be

$0\mathrm{.}5\%($i$.$e$.,$ probability $=0\mathrm{.}005)$ during the supply cycle. They have further

estimated that the $$unique$-$event$$ risk for any of the potential suppliers to be $4\%$

$($probability $=\mathrm{.}04).$ Assuming that the marginal cost of managing an additional

supplier is R$10,000,$ and the financial loss incurred if a disaster caused all

suppliers to be down simultaneously is R$10,000,000.$ Critically evaluate the

approach that you will use in determining the number of suppliers to be used.

Assume that up to three nearly identical suppliers are available. Make use of

relevant illustrations.