Table 1 Key differences between traditional supply chain (SC) risk management, Resilience-by-Design and Resilience-by-Intervention.

Threats to food security/supply chains

Actions and analytics/stages

Hardening the system based on assessing largely known or predictable risks (i.e., product of threat, vulnerability, and consequence) for preparation and absorption of threats.

Engineering systems to be recoverable and adaptable in response to both predicted and unknown threats based on modeling loss of critical system functionality over time.

Resources outside an individual SC (e.g., stockpiles, services, community stakeholder, etc.) available to facilitate recovery and adaptation of systems in case of disruptions based on modeling loss of critical system functionality over time.

Advantages of approach

Methodology is well developed and practiced, allowing the system to retain functionality without disruptions. Works well for known or predictable threats.

System is designed for self-healing and is able to quickly respond to either known/predictable or unknown disruptions in the context of its own needs and abilities. Can also make the system more agile.

Combined resources and capabilities allow for cost saving as well as flexibility to adapt to a much broader range of possible disruptions.

Disadvantages of approach

Approach limited to known or predictable threats; cost increases exponentially once low-probability high consequence disruptions are considered. Possible catastrophic failure since systems are not designed for recovery.

System needs to maintain redundant capabilities and training of personnel to continue to function and act accordingly. May be quite expensive.

Necessary cooperation and resource allocation among stakeholders, regulators, and other SC players limits speed/viability of corrective action development. Cost may be substantial, but lower than in by-design.