 Okay, now we're back from our breakout rooms and we're going to have a little discussion with Josue. We ran a little overtime, so we're going to try to make this a very efficient debrief of the discussion. We might run a few overtime if you have to leave, we understand. So I just want to start, we already got some feedback, a param from team three debriefed and let us know that the team three summary, they selected Q1, option D, and for question two, most important is supplier, least important is DC. And so these were the, most important is their supplier, least important is their DC. And then they, those are those were their selections. Okay. Okay. Okay, sure. Did they pick also a policy? I did not see that in there, param. Okay. So maybe we can, we can start discussing about this. Sure. And maybe they might pop, param might pop in another detail as we, as we all come back. Okay. So, well, in general, as academics, ourselves, we love to say the right answer is always it depends, right? So it's very hard to really make a clear statement on what is the best way to define a mitigation policy if we should consider all of the above, as we say, set to stop backup inventory, backup facility, or just one or the other, right? So the answer, the best answer is going to depend on, on how we are understanding the scenario, the full scenario, and also at the same time, the disruption that we have. But I'm sorry, just to clip in real quick, they selected option D. I'm sorry. Backup inventory with backup facility. Right. And the reason is because this can give us, you know, more flexibility in some times, right? Because the fact that you have already the inventory or the facility or distribution center has already the inventory in place is faster, is easier to make use of it, right? And it's not as expensive as to try to make use of having all the whole capacity of the plan distribution center or all the supplier, right? So in this case, it brings flexibility. And on the other side, also to have a disruption that also considers having backup as a combination can also be, you know, like some sort of redundancy, like this repost, isn't it? And I'm sure that you, all the study when you were taking the supply chain risk and management lessons during this SC3X. So the answer is correct. It's still, I would like to comment a little bit more about them, the second decision of saying what for me is the most important, the supplier, the plant or the distribution center. And if I'm not mistaken, this team says, what is the most important is the supplier and the least important is the distribution center, right? So, well, usually, again, this depends, right? But because you can actually understand your supply chain and see where you have more vulnerabilities and try to come up with a policy that will be more suitable for the context that you're having in terms of your product and in terms of your supply chain, right? However, in general, what is true is companies or supply chains should be more concerned about the immediate impact they may have in their clients' customers, right? And that means to be closer to the consumer, which is the case of the distribution center. So if you have a disruption that is happening in the supply, that means that it's going to take you still some time until your customer is going to be affected, right? So for sure you're going to have a lot of situations, but it's taking longer, right? That if the situation is actually having a disruption exactly in the point of sale, if this is happening, then immediately your customers are going to be affected and therefore the impact might be stronger and therefore it's better to be protected to the distribution center, right? So usually, remember, this is, you know, those generalizations, right? Not just an insight, but it still depends on each context, but in general, to take care of the distribution center, it might be a wise decision, right? Because it's one of the most important, because you have less time to react or respond to a disruption. While if this happens in the supplier, you still have some time to come up with an idea on a mitigation strategy, right? All right. So I don't know if there are more comments or questions. Yes. Just to pop in, you know, their policy, they selected option D, but I can also go to the next team, just who also selected. So team one, they selected option D for the question one, and they also, their rating of importance was supplier over plant over DC. Plants over DC. Okay. Well, we have discussed this. We have covered this. I did a lot of things. I'm sorry. Yeah. So I don't know. Did you talk a little bit about the policy for option D? Nope. Okay. So team two also had some feedback. They wanted to know the difference between safety stock and backup inventory, where you have the inventory is maybe more important than whether it's called safety stock or backup inventory. So just an observation. So I don't know if you have some comments on that. Okay. I think I didn't get very well the last comment, but if I understand correctly, one of the questions was to tackle the difference between safety stock and backup inventory, correct? Yes. Yes. And the second dimension, something about duration. Yeah. When you have inventory, it's sort of a comment. When you have the inventory is may, when you have the inventory is maybe more important than whether it's called safety stock or backup inventory, the company needs to be able to access the inventory during a disruption. Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah. It does. So again, the main difference is that the safety stock is a label we use for this inventory that refers to the amount that we keep, you know, in our entity of the supply chain, could be distribution center plan, et cetera, that guarantees a specific field rate or service level on their regular volatility. All right. So when you take the average, every time that you have a replenishment cycle, so you receive your new orders, what is the amount of inventory you were having in place when you received a new order, and you count this and take an average, this amount is your safety stock. So you are willing to spend this money in the units to guarantee that in case of volatility, you can use it, right? The backup inventory is different. This is a backup inventory that you never use for regular volatility. It doesn't matter. You use it only in the case of a disruption, right? So when you have a disruption, you may use this and you have it ready available. Still, you know, what you may use is a different way to manage internally the inventory, like in their warehouse, right, in their location, which means if you have, for instance, a perishable problem, it could happen that you have a certain amount that is used for backup inventory, but you can actually use it, you know, like move it as a safety stock or as an amount that you can actually deliver in case of regular volatility. But it's still guaranteed that the new inventory that is entering is keeping exactly the same amount of backup inventory that you were having in the first place, you know, like more like the first in, first out, right? But in general, this backup inventory is mainly used only for disruptions. So no confuse this with the safety stock, safety stock is for regular volatility, right? And then again, the other point was regarding what is more important to have like protection in the plant, in the supplier and distribution center. And I can understand that any of these three options is actually correct answer, right? So it's fine. Still, in general, just keep in mind what I just mentioned a moment ago. When you have a disruption in the supply chain, the first people that you are concerned are your customers. So it's better to have in that sense like a recommendation, a good backup inventory or facility capacity specifically for the distribution center so that you can guarantee that your customers are going to be, are not going to be affected by the disruption, all right? Okay. So I don't know if there is another question. You know, let's, the one other comment was, I think you mentioned it, that they are dealing with non-perishable consumer package goods. Is that correct? In the case, right, in the case that you have that situation, then there's a different way to how you are actually moving the materials, but you need to guarantee that you keep exactly the same amount of backup inventory, right? Does that make sense? Okay. Yep. And just one final clarification that we can move on to the wrap up. And Nesan wanted to know is, so backup inventory is an amount of inventory added to the inventory separate from safety stock. Correct. Okay. Okay. And it's, and just an additional clarification, it's the amount based on experience and expectation of a disruption. Ah, well, yeah, if I know that answer, then we don't have any screen game and then it's not the field of supply chain risk management. It's always hard, right? Sure. It's always hard to come up with what is like the best way to define this policy. So we are trying to just play and exercise this, but at the end, keep in mind that you are having mitigation policy and strategy in place, expecting that you will never have to use it. This is how it works, right? And then once you use it, then it means that you are under a disruption and it's always very hard to predict all this. So this makes this, just to make it very clear, the distinction between the regular volatilities that you can actually use, like very clear techniques in forecasting the man planning, right? Things that you have learned, I am saying correctly, maybe in AC1X. But when you are in these interruptions, it's very hard to really come up with a probability of occurrence of some of these, you know, natural disasters, disruptions. And I mean, still, you know, there, if we are, if we actually take this, you know, strictly speaking, that the probability, many of these events actually have a probability of zero of occurrence, but still they are possible, right? And this is why it's so challenging to really come up with this idea. So for sure, we need to use experience. For sure, we need to have an informed process in which we can put together people that can actually give us insights into the type of disruptions or challenges, risks we may have in our supply chain, understand all volatilities in our supply chain, and then to try to decide why it could be like the best way to do it, right? Anyway. Perfect. Okay. Great comments. Thanks to Param, Jonathan, and Ahmed for facilitating the discussion. I think we're going to let, we're running a little over time. We're going to let Josue wrap it up, and then we're going to sign off. So I'll let Josue, you have a few more comments to share. Sure. Yeah. Sure, you have the results, right? So don't leave. Yeah. And then you have all the commitments, but then you need to know how do you perform. Now, if you have to leave now, it's fine. I'm going to make available all of these results so you can see what was the performance of your policy. And if you have any questions, you can always reach out to me, right? But anyway, just again, I'm going to use this ID. So am I sharing how my slides happen? Yes. Okay. So we will use this ID, right, to track what was the performance under the different scenarios, right? All right. And just keep in mind, we are using this baseline of 10 potential disruptions, and then we build these scenarios by assuming certain probability of occurrence in any of them, right? All right. So now we are watching the first one. Of course, remember that the Sunday means everybody got the highest field rate, which is 99%, remember under normal volatility, this is the field rate that you are expected to obtain because you have already in place an inventory policy, you know, with safety stock, et cetera. But if you have a disruption, in this case means having 2% probability that a potential disruption may occur to each of them, this is the chart that you see, right? So let me just very briefly explain this. Remember that I remember that I said 90% of the rate at least, right? But because your policies were so good, I decided to change this and now we are making the assessment under 95% at least, right? So still we are not giving you any penalization, we are not giving you a discount, it's just for a better way to assess the best policies, right? So you can find here, right? So we have all these points in the chart, and remember in the horizontal axis cost, vertical field rate, and then you can see this blue line is just a curve that tries to understand the shape of the Pareto front, you know, those solutions that actually dominate the rest of the solution, right? And then we have the four different areas. So when we see this, we actually just observe one particular policy that is below 95%, right? And still it's with a reasonable amount of cost, but still it's dominated by the green solution, which is actually policy too. Anyway, if we move now to the other slide, it's on you. Remember we are increasing 5% of probability for occurrence of these baseline disruptions. Then we observe now that actually the field rate, the gaps are now bigger, and still all of these solutions are in the good areas, right? I mean, some of the red, but I still know the other red area in which I just made the joke that you should be looking for another job. You know, now we are not getting any of those. So either you are making a decision of spending a lot of money to be very conservative and guarantee the field rate above 95% or simply you are saying I'm willing to accept lower field rate with less cost. But the vast majority of the solutions still are in the good area, you know, the blue and the red, and the red area. If we move now to slightly cloudy, so this means increasing. If I'm not mistaken, should be around 7% of probability of each of the baseline scenarios. And here we observe that, again, now it's not complex. The credit of right. So we have like this interesting inflection point. And then you see that all the solutions still dominate more solutions. And still, while the field rate now, you know, it's lower. I mean, there are some solutions that are up in lower field rate. Still, the vast majority of the solutions are actually doing quite well, right? If we go now for very cloudy, still we observe similar patterns. Nightmare. Nightmare, if I'm not mistaken, means one year of stopping, I think, the distribution center, if I'm not mistaken, or the plant. We're going to check out that in a moment. But just for moving on fast, I'm just going to continue. But you can always check out the information of the disruptions and the probabilities that are in this slide. But you observe now, we are getting a solution that's obtained 65% of field rate. It's actually quite low, right? And the solution, if I'm not mistaken, should be 50, the idea is 50, right? So you were not expecting a lot of disruptions that we're trying to save a lot of money, right? But anyway, so we still have some solutions here. But keep in mind that those solutions that are in the red area, remember, those that are below 95% and also above the average cost, we said that they are not good. But all of them still appear above 90%, which is good, right? Short overlapping, remember that we were having the same amount of time, the three distribution center plant and supplier down for the disruption at the same time. And of course, this has a huge impact in the supply chain. The supplier is down long term. So it was one year of supplier not being able to deliver. And of course, the field rate goes even down sometimes to 70%. And actually, this scenario really affected many of your policies. Same with distribution center. This actually was the worst, right? And actually, it's consistent with what I just said. When you have a disruption in distribution center, this affects immediately your field rate. And finally, even probability, this means we get exactly 10% in each of the scenarios. So everything could happen, including the sunny day, that nothing will happen. And you can also see how your policies did under this scenario. So I will share these slides. I know that I'm going very fast, but there are more than 50 people that actually submitted solutions. So I think it would be easier for you to go. And in case you have more questions, you can always reach out to me later, right? But now let me announce the winners for the winner. So first, these are ranked based on the scores, right? So we got actually, like, I found a mistake in around 10, maybe more, that obtain all the points. So actually, all the solutions in the 10 scenarios were in the green area. That means we're extremely close on the Pareto front or we're actually the Pareto front. So we have all of you, right? So it's going to be even hard for me to pronounce your ID names. But if you see your name there, congratulations. You've done great. And then I will try still to convince Arthur to give you at least a pin or something when you're around for MIT, right? But to actually decide a single winner in this exercise, what we did is we used this theoretical Pareto front, as I said. So in general, that means I'm going to run different potential scenarios. I will take all of these disruptions. I will take all these demands. And I will just build theoretical Pareto front, what is the best of the best that I can get based on the results that we have, right? And still, as I said, this is an arbitrary solution, because every time that you run these simulations, you may get different solutions. But just by running this and comparing all the solutions in terms of how many times they are dominated, right? We can actually get those solutions that are the least in the dominated set, which means closer to the Pareto front. And by doing that, we actually got only one winner, which is the ID 54, Marisa. So Arthur is moving their head, so I guess you know her. So the policy actually allows to be dominated only nine times, which is a great solution. And then you can observe how many times all that's like. My nine times mean also how many solutions are dominating you in a certain period of time. And in the sense where you observe the policy of C and C and C in this original central plan and supplier, usually that means to have available the capacity after the second week, if I'm not mistaken. And that means that you should be protected for these two weeks with certain amount of inventory, backup inventory. And remember that the average is 100. So what she did, I guess, in the intuition is to say, well, we'll keep 200, 100. This can protect me in case of a disruption in many of these cases. And by having 666, I can guarantee that I will have the 100% of capacity ready available. So this is, in general, a good intuition that can protect you on a different scenario. So there is no need to really know everything, what is going to happen. But if something happens, this policy actually isn't between being conservative or not. So congratulations to Marisa. She got the Oscar respect and prestige from us. And this is the comment that she wrote in the argument. This policy minimizes the quite additional inventory, focus on flexibility, which means also I can use this for many different situations, and also to a fast full response from backup, which means in two weeks. So I guess, both of us, we are having exactly the same reasoning under this policy. All right, so let me just have one minute more for the wrap up. So observations from the game, for sure, different policies do well on the different scenarios. So while we could still observe that there was one policy in this case that actually, or not one, that obtained all the points and did very good on the different scenarios, you can actually have differences in these policies, as I mentioned before, and one of them could do better on the different conditions. But in general, the option B that you also decided in all the breakout rooms, how we can combine redundancy with flexibility, which means backup capacity with backup inventory, is actually a reasonable approach. And understanding the right scenario is key. It's not just understanding this, but remember, knowing this information is not understanding necessarily. We tend to overestimate. So we should take this into account and to rebuild quantitative tools that can support our decisions. But at the end is always a combination of experience bringing people together and to come up with interesting and feasible mitigation strategies. So again, scenario creation is an informed process. So in this case, I just play myself the role of a dictator in this game, which is part of the setting of the game. But in general, if you can bring people together that can actually understand, what will be the impact of, for instance, having a situation of destroying the trade agreement, like, for instance, an after deal? What is the impact if now China with the Paris Agreement will come up with a couple of trade systems that now more companies will have to minimize emissions and also change the way they manufacture in China? What will be the effect of Brexit? What is the effect of natural disasters? So you need also to bring people that can actually identify the vulnerabilities of your supply chain and to help you to understand better the potential disruptions and build scenarios that are more suitable for your context. In this case, we just play, but the idea is to have an informed process on this. Key learnings. So first one, remember what I mentioned in the video. What is the return on investment of a health insurance? It's always very hard to really pick what is the right one. And because sometimes we say, no, nothing is going to happen to us. I'd like to be here all again with very high esteem overestimating the things that may happen. But at the end, you prepare for something, but you expect that hopefully it will never happen in a molecule. So this is very hard to assess, and that's why communication. How you are going to communicate with the proper authorities in our organization is key. And one of the tools that you can use is actually this front or this efficient set that I just mentioned in the videos and also discuss here with you. How you can explain this better by saying, well, if something happens, this is what we can do or not, can actually give more insights to the managers of top managers of organization to understand that in supply chain risk management, it's not just about cost, but also be prepared for things that have very low probability of occurrence. Remember, nobody gets credit for some of the problems that didn't happen. So this is the take that we have when we are working in supply chain risk management. Also keep in mind part of the discussions, usually the longer the lead time. I mean, the lead time is this time that you take to respond to these interruptions. So this time is longer, then you have more time to react. So if we follow this advice, in general, it's always better to be protected in the distribution center. What is the entity of the supply chain that is closer to my customer? I try to come up with interesting backup options there, because this could be very dangerous. Could affect immediately the field. And again, the optimality condition, this is just to understand that there is no way to come up with that one single solution. In this case, we have a pariet of fronts and multiple solutions that we cannot distinguish, which one is better between them. But we can observe that they actually dominate the rest of other potential solutions. And understanding these is a good tool to communicate better trade-offs in supply chain risk management. So with this, I finish. It's been really a great pleasure to be here with you. And I really hope that you enjoy playing with the game. Remember, this is just a game. So I know that many of you are very competitive. And they were saying, why? You are forcing me to come up with an idea. You are not giving me any information. Oh, we are trying to immerse you in a situation of having an experience, how actually companies face situations when they don't have exactly what are the probabilities of the potential scenarios or either the information of the scenarios. So I hope that you enjoy this. It's been really a great pleasure to be here. And thank you, Arthur. Thank you, Alexis, for the invitation. And if you have any more questions, my email, Josue, josueatmit.edu. And again, if still you want to discuss more about this, but maybe you have also questions regarding the Blended Program, I'm more than happy to answer. And we can organize always a live event to talk about the Blended Program. But thank you very much for this, guys. Perfect. OK. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you, Josue. Sorry, we went over time. And we'll wrap it up now. Thank you very much.